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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by enumerating returned fields: followers, average views, connection health, category, and tags. It also clarifies the account scope (official API connections) and the watchlist distinction, giving the agent a good sense of what to expect beyond the annotation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then provides scoping context, output fields, and a key distinction. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

The tool is a straightforward list operation with no required parameters and a fully described input schema. The description covers what the tool lists, what fields are returned, and how it differs from the watchlist sibling. The absence of an output schema makes the listed output fields especially valuable, but pagination or result-limit behavior is not mentioned; that minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 each parameter already has a clear explanation. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics; it only lists output fields, which is not required because the schema already carries the filtering guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the organization's OWN connected accounts'), and clarifies the meaning of 'My Accounts' as official API-connected Instagram/TikTok accounts. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the watchlist, making it easy for an agent to know exactly what this tool returns.

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 clearly positions this tool as the one for the organization's own accounts and explicitly says it is 'Distinct from the watchlist (competitors/inspiration)', which tells the agent when not to use it. This effectively routes the agent toward list_watchlist_accounts for competitor/inspiration data, even though that sibling is not named directly.

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