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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (id, platform, username, status) and adds a security-relevant detail ('never tokens'). It also clarifies it is not a preflight check, preventing misuse. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'List' implies no side effects; a minor gap given no annotation support.

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?

The description is efficiently structured: it starts with the core purpose, then usage constraints, and ends with return info. Every sentence adds value, and the negative example is front-loaded. Despite its length, it remains tight and scannable.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides crucial context: what it returns, that it never returns tokens, and when not to use it. It could be more complete by explaining how to use the parameters, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it does not. It never mentions the 'status' filter (beyond the enum in schema) or the 'platform' filter. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no guidance on how to use them, such as filtering by platform or status. This is a significant gap for a tool with two optional parameters.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pairing ('List the user's connected social media accounts') and names example platforms. It explicitly differentiates itself from action tools by explaining that a platform mentioned inside an action is the action's target, not this tool's concern. This makes the purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like publish_post_now or disconnect_account.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use ONLY when they ask which accounts they have or whether a platform is connected.' It also gives a clear negative rule with an alternative: 'NOT a preflight... call the action tool.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool versus an action tool.

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