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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it says the tool never connects accounts on its own and never asks for passwords, which is important trust context for a user-facing onboarding flow. It stops short of describing what the payload looks like beyond 'links and steps'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers purpose, return value, trigger conditions and the safety boundary with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does ('devuelve los enlaces y pasos'). Combined with the explicit triggers and the no-credentials guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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 brand_id description already explains sourcing it from list_brands and asking the user when ambiguous. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 concrete verb-plus-outcome: checks whether the brand has social networks connected and, if not, returns links and steps for the user to connect them (Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_accounts, so an agent can separate the two without reading either 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?

Gives three explicit trigger conditions (list_accounts returns empty, a newly registered user, or a request to connect another network) and names the sibling tool that signals the need. It also states a boundary — it does not connect anything itself — leaving little to inference.

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