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

Annotations only say non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive; the description goes far beyond by disclosing the async auth flow, browser handoff requirement, and exact error contracts (402 x_billing_required for X, 402 billing_required with details.billingUrl past three free accounts). That is precisely the operational context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 action and platform list, then platform-specific caveats, then the return/polling contract — a sensible order. It is dense in the middle (billing clauses stacked together) but nearly every sentence carries actionable detail; nothing is padding.

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 documents the returned authUrl and the required follow-up call, plus the billing failure modes. It is incomplete on the enum surface: tiktok_ads, meta_ads, whatsapp, and google_business_profile are valid platforms but never mentioned, and redirectUrl is undocumented.

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 coverage is only 20%, and the description compensates well for handle (Bluesky DID/handle, server resolution, omission defaults to bsky.social) and authMethod (instagram_login vs facebook_login and why). It leaves redirectUrl and the required profileId's sourcing (only in the schema) unexplained, so a small gap remains.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: starting the connection (OAuth) flow for a named set of social platforms, including the profile-vs-Page distinction. It is clearly separable from siblings such as get_connect_session (polling) and disconnect_account (teardown).

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?

Explicitly instructs to open the returned authUrl in a browser and then poll get_connect_session until connected/failed/expired, which is the key sequencing guidance. It also names the preconditions that select a different outcome (card on file for X, three-account free limit). What it lacks is any statement of when NOT to use it, e.g. against an already-connected account.

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