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

Annotations already mark the call as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying what the response contains: supported platforms, accepted target fields, optional params, and connected accounts. It doesn't contradict the annotations and goes beyond simply saying it's a read-only operation.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the action examples are useful, and the invocation trigger is placed at the end for clarity. 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, the description takes responsibility for explaining return content, and it does so well: actions, platforms, target fields, optional params, and connected accounts. It also gives a clear usage trigger. The main gap is workspaceId handling, but for a simple one-parameter introspection tool this is nearly complete.

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 input schema has one optional workspaceId with no description, and the description never explains how workspaceId is used or what happens when it is omitted. The phrase 'this workspace' hints at the parameter but doesn't clarify its semantics, which matters because the schema description coverage is 0%.

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 states the tool lists platform actions (with concrete examples), the platforms each supports, per-platform target fields and optional params, and connected accounts. This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from the many sibling tools as a capabilities/introspection endpoint.

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, actionable trigger: 'Call this when an action tool returns wrong_target_for_platform or unsupported_capability.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and for what purpose, leaving little to inference.

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