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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: account IDs are never returned and the meaning of publish_mode values is disclosed. This is useful for an agent managing expectations about the output, though it does not detail every possible field or edge case.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds necessary information: the accounts and publish mode, the meaning of publish_mode values, and the deliberate omission of account IDs. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know: what is returned, what the publish_mode values mean, and what is intentionally absent from results. No critical usage or return-value information 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?

The schema fully documents the single required parameter 'brand' as a brand slug, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists connected social accounts and whether the brand publishes to them, which is a specific verb-resource scope. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool's purpose from identity lookup by stating 'Account IDs are never returned — this answers "did my user finish connecting", not "who are they"', making sibling differentiation strong.

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 to use the tool: to determine whether a user finished connecting accounts and how publishing is configured. It explicitly excludes identity use cases ('not who are they'), though it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool or provide an explicit when-not-to-use list, so it misses the top score.

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