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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists the exact platforms covered, states that connection IDs are returned, and flags that Facebook page accounts include a pageId because pages have no username. No contradictions with the annotations.

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 description is concise and front-loaded: it states the core behavior in the first sentence and adds only the most relevant nuance about Facebook pages in the second. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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?

Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It explains the tool's purpose, who might need it, and an important output nuance that is not obvious from the schema.

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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the returned identifiers are used for, even though there are no parameter definitions to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all connected social media accounts'), enumerates the supported platforms, and states that it returns connection IDs needed for creating posts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on posts and scheduling.

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?

The phrase 'Returns connection IDs needed for creating posts' clearly signals when to use this tool: before creating posts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the usage context is obvious given the listed siblings.

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