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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: an authorization prerequisite ('needs the seat's right to manage connected channels; otherwise it is refused') plus the exact fields returned. It stops short of describing pagination or behavior with zero connected channels, keeping it just below a top score.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return shape, filtering, downstream usage, auth, and the exclusion — a logical order with no wasted sentences. The mid-sentence parenthetical platform enumeration ('LinkedIn profiles and pages, X accounts, and so on') is slightly padded and makes the opening sentence long.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, the result fields, the filter, the authorization requirement and its failure mode, and the sibling boundary. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single enum parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by framing `platform` as a narrowing filter and by explaining how the returned id is consumed downstream in `platform_account_ids`. It doesn't add format nuance beyond the enum, which the schema already supplies.

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 and resource (list the social channels connected to the active workspace), and names the concrete platforms, the sort order, and the returned fields (numeric id, platform, name). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_accounts (DemandBird accounts), so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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 both when to use it and when not to: 'Not for DemandBird accounts (that is list_accounts)'. It also explains the practical follow-on use — pass the id in `platform_account_ids` on schedule_post/queue_post/publish_post/save_draft when a platform has multiple channels — and how `platform` narrows the result.

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