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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful context: the auth scope needed, that the call is free, and the important caveat that status is always "connected" with no expired/needs-reauthorisation states. 'Changes nothing' mostly restates destructiveHint=false, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and only then the caveats. The parenthetical about finer-grained status is slightly verbose but earns its place by preventing a wrong assumption about the status field.

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 takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so. Annotations cover the safety profile and there are no parameters, so nothing critical is missing; only an explicit alternative-tool pointer would improve 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by naming the fields the listing surfaces (platform, handle, status), which helps the caller interpret the result despite the absence of an output schema.

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 verb (list) and resource (every social account connected to this Soclo account) and even enumerates the returned fields (platform, handle, status). It is easy to separate from the accounts siblings bootstrap/connect/disconnect, which mutate connection state.

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 implies usage by stating the required scope (read:accounts) and clarifying that ad-only connections are included, but it never says when to reach for this versus soclo_accounts_bootstrap or other account-state tools, nor does it state any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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