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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that missing provider consent yields a reconnect status, which is not derivable from the schema. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false for a listing operation, leaving a notable gap.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct information: scope, the social-vs-ad distinction, and the consent/reconnect caveat.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the consent caveat is a solid addition. Still, with three parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the meaning of brandId and optional connectionId under-specified for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it only partially compensates: it names the three providers, loosely mapping to the provider enum. It does not clarify brandId semantics, the role of the optional connectionId, or how it relates to the 'brand connection' it describes.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource (list ad accounts) scoped to the brand connection, and it names the three supported providers. It implicitly distinguishes itself from social-connection tooling via 'Social connections alone do not imply ad access', though it does not name a specific sibling like list_connected_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?

It gives useful context ('accessible through this brand connection') and a caveat about social connections not implying ad access, which hints at when this tool is the right one. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusions or prerequisites for calling it.

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