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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the payload shape and the meaning of the status field (OK vs expired requiring a reconnect), which is genuine behavioral context an agent can act on. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether accounts from all services are included.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned fields with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so adequately for a simple zero-argument list tool. Minor gaps: it doesn't say whether results are complete or truncated, nor explicitly what a caller should do when status is expired (reconnect_account).

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to compensate for on this dimension.

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 names the resource ('connected social accounts (sources)') and enumerates the fields returned (service, name, status, widgets), which is specific enough to distinguish it from get_account (single) and the various *_account/*_review_source mutations. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_review_sources, 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?

Usage is only implied: it's evidently the enumeration counterpart to get_account, and the 'expired and in need of a reconnect' note hints that reconnect_account follows. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' statement, and no guidance on whether the list is filtered or scoped to the current user.

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