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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful non-schema context by noting the separate publishing consent requirement and that availability is current, though it does not describe return format details beyond what the output schema likely covers.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundant wording.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool with a rich set of annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and a key consent prerequisite. It leaves little ambiguity, though it could optionally mention the absence of filtering or sorting for additional clarity.

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, so there is no parameter meaning to clarify beyond the baseline. The description is appropriately silent on parameters because the empty schema already makes that clear.

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 ("Read") with a clearly scoped resource: connected publishing accounts and their current availability for the linked Clypmint account. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling connect_social_accounts tool, which would establish a connection rather than read existing ones.

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 description gives clear context for when this tool is useful: checking connected publishing accounts and their availability. It also states a prerequisite ("Requires separate publishing consent"), but it does not explicitly name the alternative connect_social_accounts or state when not to use this tool.

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