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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: only 'active' accounts can be published to, an empty list means no connected channel, and the user should be sent to the connection dashboard. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Six short sentences, each earning its place: output fields, publish routing, active-status rule, unnamed-channel behavior, empty-list handling, and a fallback URL. The key instruction is front-loaded and there is 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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the item fields and the practical consequences of the result: which accounts publish, what to do when no channel is named, and what an empty list means. The only omitted detail, workspaceId semantics, is already fully covered by the input schema, so nothing essential is missing for a low-complexity list tool.

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 the workspaceId parameter is fully documented in the input schema itself. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('connected social accounts') and the kind of data returned (id, platform, handle, status). It also ties the tool to the publish workflow ('accountIds you pass to publish are these ids'), but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_platforms or select_channels to differentiate them.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this before publishing anything,' and explains how to use the result: pass accountIds to publish, target every active account when no channel is named, and redirect to the dashboard when the list is empty. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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