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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the status field semantics and the 'disconnected' constraint, though it says nothing about ordering or result size.

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 tight sentences: field list first, then the actionable constraint. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly supplies the return-field list, and for a zero-parameter read tool that is all an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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 and the schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter discussion is needed or expected.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('The social accounts connected to this workspace') plus an enumeration of the returned fields, which lets an agent decide instantly whether it needs this data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete downstream usage ('Use the ids in create_post') and a precondition warning that 'disconnected' accounts can't post — genuinely actionable context. It stops short of explicit when/when-not framing or naming an alternative tool.

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