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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It still adds genuinely useful behavior: a 'partial' status still returns the accounts that loaded and errors lists the failures — a non-obvious payload contract. Pagination/result caps are not mentioned.

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 sentences, each doing a distinct job: scope, filters, ordering dependency, and response caveat. Front-loaded with the resource and no filler.

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 usefully explains the partial/errors response shape instead of inventing return-value detail. The remaining gap for a list tool is pagination or result-size behavior, which is absent.

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 must compensate for the three filters. It names platformId/profileId/accountId and states they are optional filters, but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema's own UUID patterns and enum. It also lists only six platforms while the enum has ten (linkedin, meta_ads, whatsapp, tiktok_ads omitted), which slightly under-describes the platform filter.

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?

Concrete verb plus resource ('List the Instagram, Facebook, TikTok... accounts across the organization') with the filter dimensions named. It reads clearly against get_account (single) and list_profiles, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling ads_list_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?

'Call this first: every other account-level tool takes an accountId from here' gives explicit ordering and dependency guidance that most definitions lack. It stops short of when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., versus ads_list_accounts for ad-specific accounts), but the context is clear.

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