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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered without description help. The description adds a useful sequencing constraint but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or handling of accounts with no connected profiles – modest added value over the structured data.

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 sentences, no filler, with the resource definition front-loaded and the workflow instruction second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and no parameters, the description should carry the return-value burden, and it partially does by identifying the profile types returned. It omits any indication of the fields each profile carries (e.g. IDs or handles) that an agent would need to pass to the downstream tools it references.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-account listing.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('The Twitter and LinkedIn profiles connected to this VoiceMoat account'), making the scope immediately clear. It stops short of contrasting itself against closely named siblings like get_voice_profile or get_me, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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 second sentence is an explicit workflow directive: 'Resolve a profile from here before any tool that names one,' telling the agent when this tool must precede others. It doesn't name specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls 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.