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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the authenticated user's connected profiles, a useful auth/scope detail, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema declares.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped to zero waste. The optional filter is introduced second, matching its secondary importance.

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 values need not be described, and pagination/ordering are fully covered by the 100%-covered input schema. For a read-only list tool with a five-parameter, all-optional schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by clarifying the semantics of post_type: it is not just a filter but a way to identify which profiles support that post type. That meaning is not obvious from the schema's enum alone.

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 specific verb and resource ('List all connected social media profiles for the user'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list-posts-tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast, 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?

The description implies usage ('for the user', 'optionally filter by post type to see which profiles support that type') but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and names no alternatives. The filter rationale is a helpful hint but not a routing rule.

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