Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the first call triggers a user connection prompt and the call is retried automatically. It also reinforces that nothing is published, complementing the read-only annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: listing the accounts, explaining the use case, and clarifying the connection requirement and non-destructive nature. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple list tool with an empty input schema and no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, use case, side effect (first-time auth), and safety, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-specific information, which is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists connected social accounts for a specific purpose ('so you know where a video could be published and under which handle'). It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'social accounts', and differentiates itself from the sibling send_script_to_teleprompter by emphasizing it publishes nothing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: before publishing a video to know target platforms and handles. It also notes the first-time connection requirement and auto-retry, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, though the sibling tool is unrelated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.