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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond that: it discloses the scope of results (active and not active), what each entry reports (AI answers messages/comments), and an auth prerequisite ('needs Meta's login') for the related dashboard operations.

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 title line is repeated as the first sentence, which is slightly redundant, but the payload sentence is dense with relevant detail and the dashboard caveat is front-loaded at the end. No filler beyond the echoed title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing what the list contains (channel types, active state, AI-answering flags). The auth note covers a related workflow, though pagination/ordering behavior is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single agent_id parameter already documents its UUID format and its 404/403 error semantics in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list an agent's connections') and then enumerates exactly what a connection is (Facebook pages, Instagram accounts, WhatsApp numbers), including the active/inactive dimension and the AI-answering flag. An agent can distinguish this read operation from connect/disconnect actions without opening the schema.

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 implicitly frames usage by noting that connecting and disconnecting happen in the dashboard rather than via this tool, which is a partial when-not statement. However, it never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. update_connection, list_agents), so the agent must infer that this is the read-only viewer for an agent's channels.

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