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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the primary behavior: the tool reports connected social accounts and whether the plan covers each. It doesn't cover edge cases, auth, or output format, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 text is just one clause with no filler, and the core subject is front-loaded. It is slightly underspecified because it is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, but it wastes no tokens.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to predict the returned data: channels and plan coverage. It leaves 'the plan' underspecified and gives no relationship to get_current_plan or get_plan_usage, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 input schema has no properties and no required parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The 100% schema coverage is vacuous, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 identifies the tool's subject (connected social accounts) and the key result (whether the plan covers them), so an agent can infer it lists channels with plan-coverage status. It lacks an explicit action verb and doesn't directly contrast with sibling tools, but 'channels' is a distinct resource among the list_* siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of get_current_plan, get_plan_usage, or list_workspaces. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues are given; the only signal is the tool name itself.

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