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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what 'details' are returned, whether access is scoped to the workspace, or any rate/permission behavior. With annotations doing the work, the description contributes no extra behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and nothing is wasted.

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 would need to convey what a 'detail' response contains, and it does not — 'details' remains undefined. For a trivial one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but leaves the return payload opaque.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'The account ID'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or naming detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific connected social media account'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_accounts (plural enumeration vs. single fetch). It is clear but never explicitly names or differentiates itself from list_accounts.

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 required 'id' parameter implies the caller must already know the account ID, but the description never says when to use this vs. list_accounts to discover IDs, nor states any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied.

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