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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states which platforms are connected, what fields are returned, and crucially that only Facebook and Instagram can publish today. This helps the agent anticipate real-world constraints.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first defines the listing scope and output, the second explains how to use the ids, and the third adds the key publishing caveat. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete. It names the returned fields, explains how the output should be used with sibling tools, and flags platform-specific limitations, leaving no critical gap for an agent selecting or invoking 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on the output fields rather than parameters, as there are none to explain.

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'), names the exact resource ('connected social channels'), and enumerates the platforms and returned fields (channel id, platform, name, handle, status). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools such as list_company_pages or list_profiles.

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 clear, actionable context for downstream use: ids can be passed to publish_to_channels, schedule_post, or set_post_channels. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use this tool versus sibling list tools, but the use cases are well specified.

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