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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: at most one account per network and a reconnection flag, plus the important constraint that this resource cannot be mutated through tools.

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?

Two compact sentences: the resource is front-loaded, and the operational constraint follows. Nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does right by sketching the return shape (per-network accounts plus reconnect status). The only gap is the vague 'give the user the link' – it is unclear where that link comes from and whether the tool returns it.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'project' parameter, and required count is 0, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that accounts belong to a project but never says whether the parameter is a name or ID, or what happens when it is omitted (all projects? default project?).

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 names a specific resource (connected Instagram/TikTok/YouTube accounts) and what it reports (connection + reconnection status). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby get_account sibling.

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?

It gives a concrete usage rule: connecting or disconnecting must happen in the app, so the agent should hand the user a link rather than attempt the action. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_account or list_projects.

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