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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the external Facebook call, that a rejected token sets unauthorizedReason with Facebook's message, that a working token clears an earlier mark, the 400 failure for non-Facebook accounts, the accounts.manage permission requirement, the twice-daily automatic check, and that nothing is posted. Idempotency is already in annotations, so it's not repeated needlessly.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then failure semantics, scope, triggers, and prerequisites in a compact sequence. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information with no padding.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description instead covers side effects, permission requirements, failure modes, eligibility, and automation cadence. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so accountId (id or pageId) and workspaceId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds context about the stored token but no additional parameter syntax or constraint detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: re-check a Facebook page live with its stored token and return fresh status. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like retry_failed_platforms or list_accounts by naming the re-verification behavior and the Facebook-only scope.

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 triggers: after the user reconnects or fixes a page, or when a Facebook post failed with a token error. It does not name an alternative tool that might also resolve token errors (e.g. retry_failed_platforms), so the when-not/alternative guidance is incomplete rather than absent.

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