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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool exposes granted scopes and that it should be called first (ordering dependency). No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: the first front-loads the purpose and outputs, the second conveys the ordering usage, and the third gives the alternative route. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what data is returned, when to call it, and how to handle the no-account case. It lacks return-format details (no output schema), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already provides a detailed, prescriptive description of the 'context' parameter (word count, third-person perspective, example). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the verb 'identify' with a specific resource ('the connected pith.day user') and enumerates the exact data fields returned (email, linked Instagram accounts with capabilities, plan tier, scopes). This distinguishes it from siblings like connect_instagram or get_billing_status.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to discover the handle other tools need' and provides a clear conditional alternative: 'No accounts yet? Use connect_instagram to link one.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to use a sibling.

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