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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the caller/role requirement, which largely restates the creator_id schema description. No pagination or result-shape context beyond what the annotations and output schema provide.

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, no filler, and the primary scope statement leads before the conditional requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only paginated list with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the one thing structure does not make obvious: the caller-dependent requirement for creator_id. Nothing essential is missing, though redirecting to sibling tools is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%: limit, cursor, platform, and creator_id are each documented in the schema including enums and the agency/creator distinction. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema text, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (connected social accounts) and scopes it to two caller contexts (authenticated creator vs. agency roster creator). It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling list/mutation tools such as social_add and social_remove, so an agent must infer the read-vs-write boundary from the name alone.

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 a concrete conditional rule: agency callers must supply creator_id, creator callers omit it. This tells the agent when the tool applies to whom, but names no alternative tool and gives no exclusion for when listing is unnecessary.

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