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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds the substantive behavioral detail they cannot: the 14-day failure lookback, the 7-day scheduling horizon, grouping of upcoming posts by upload, quota inclusion, and that reconnect entries carry a shareable reconnect_url. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs to interpret the response without an output schema.

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 highest-value content — what the call returns — leads, followed by usage triggers, then the scope caveat. Every clause maps to a distinct return element; nothing is filler or repeated from the schema.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so item by item, including the failure reason and reconnect_url. An agent knows what it will get, when to call it, and how scope widens when workspace_id is omitted.

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 parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's closing line about omitting workspace_id restates the schema's own note rather than adding new semantics such as ordering or pagination across multiple workspaces.

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 (returns workspace status) and then enumerates exactly what comes back: broken/rate-limited connections, failures from the last 14 days, the next 7 days of scheduled posts, and the monthly upload quota. This clearly differentiates it from narrow siblings like list_scheduled_posts or list_platform_connections by framing it as a single aggregated health view.

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 explicit trigger conditions — 'how things are going', 'why something didn't post', 'what's coming up' — and calls itself a 'good first call', which is a real routing signal. It does not name which sibling to use instead when the user wants, say, full post lists or analytics, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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