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

Annotations only declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds substantive behavioral context the annotations cannot: expiresAt refers to the access token not the connection, autoRenews=true means a past date is normal and requires no action, and only past expiresAt with autoRenews=false signals a needed reconnection. It also discloses that accounts are connected in the app, not through this server.

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 and the 'call this first' directive are front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable information about token expiry. The expiry explanation restates itself slightly ('a date in the past is normal and needs no action' followed by the autoRenews=false exception), a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight block.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — it does so field by field. Combined with the dependency ordering and expiry semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and act on the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing schema-side to add meaning to. The description usefully documents the shape of the returned records instead, which is the closest analogue to parameter semantics here.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the social accounts connected to this workspace') and enumerates the returned fields (id, platform, handle, display name), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. No sibling tool lists accounts, so this is unambiguously distinct.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this first' and names the four siblings (schedule_post, update_post, check_draft, create_hook_test) that consume the id returned here, establishing a hard dependency ordering. It also gives when-to-act guidance for reconnection, so the agent knows both when to call and how to interpret the result.

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