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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is met structurally. The description adds substantive context beyond that: credentials are never returned ('identity only, no tokens') and the read-scope auth requirement. It omits nothing critical for a zero-param read.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource, then the two special entry types, then the imperative and the scope requirement. Dense but every clause carries information; only the internal em-dash/colon nesting slightly slows parsing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be restated, and the description covers the remaining agent-facing concerns: what kinds of entries appear, what to do with a link, and the required scope. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is the baseline 4. The description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Connected social accounts') and enumerates what the listing contains: identity-only accounts plus `connect` links for platforms with no live account and `reconnect` entries for expired ones. It is specific enough to distinguish from connections_link, though the mixed-purpose wording ('plus connect/reconnect') takes a reading to parse.

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 a clear usage instruction for the actionable case ('Hand the link to the human') and a prerequisite ('Needs the read scope'). It does not explicitly name connections_link as the alternative for the link-generation path, so routing between the two siblings is left partly to inference.

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