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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, closed-world call, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by describing the payload fields (id, platform, handle) and its prerequisite role in the posting flow; it says nothing about empty-state behavior or whether archived/disconnected profiles are included.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the first defines the output, the second gives the call ordering. Front-loaded and easy to act on.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so at a summary level (ids, platform, handle). A quick note on what an empty result means or on the profiles-vs-connected-accounts distinction would make it fully complete.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs.

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 the resource ('profile ids ... with each one's platform and handle'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of an explicit verb ('list') and never distinguishes this from the nearby sibling sprkly_list_connected_social_accounts, which sounds like it may return overlapping data.

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 workflow rule: call this before sprkly_schedule_post, which is exactly the kind of ordering guidance agents need. It offers no exclusions or guidance on when a different listing tool (e.g. sprkly_list_connected_social_accounts) is the better choice.

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