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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add platform-specific shape detail — LinkedIn rows include safety by default (because it gates outreach), Google rows omit LinkedIn-only safety/budget/ramp fields, and maintenance is opt-in and bounded. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though the phrase 'bounded' is left vague.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the operational caveat about pagination. Every sentence carries information; no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the non-obvious risks (pagination truncation, platform-dependent row shape). It is complete enough to call safely, with the only gap being the undocumented input parameters.

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 only 17% (only workspaceId is documented), so the description must carry more weight. It does clarify include.safety (default on for LinkedIn) and include.maintenance (opt-in), but says nothing about ids, limit, cursor, or the platform enum, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read one or many connected accounts.' A reader can distinguish this read tool from the many edit_*/connect_account/delete_* siblings without opening a schema. It stops short of naming a sibling it should be preferred over, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions rather than none: LinkedIn rows carry safety unless maintenance is opted into, and it explicitly tells the agent to page through before counting rather than presenting one page as the full set. No alternative tool routing is offered, so it is not a full when/when-not specification.

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