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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the shape of each result (uid, platform_slug, can_post), that create_post rejects ineligible accounts, and that platform slugs must be taken verbatim rather than inferred. It stops short of covering ordering, pagination, or the size of a typical result set, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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: purpose first, then result shape, then the create_post handoff, then the failure case. No restatement of the title or annotations, and every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

Two simple parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and closed-world/read-only annotations. The description supplies the one thing the structured data cannot: what the returned fields mean and how to use them correctly downstream. Nothing an agent needs to call this successfully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond it by establishing that platform_slug values are authoritative and must come from real account records rather than being guessed, which informs how the social_platform filter should be populated. It adds no detail on workspace_uid beyond the schema's own note.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the social media accounts connected to a Feedlio workspace'), which is clearly distinct from sibling listers like list_workspaces, list_media, and list_posts. An agent can route to this tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explicitly ties the tool to the downstream create_post flow, states the eligibility rule (can_post: true), and gives a when-not path for can_post: false ('tell the user instead of retrying'). That is both positive routing and an exclusion, which is the top of the rubric.

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