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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the plan-limit failure mode and the quota mechanic that resolves it, which annotations do not express.

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 tight sentences: action and effect first, then when-to-use, then failure handling. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, eligibility condition, and failure/remedy behavior. Nothing material 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% for the single account_id parameter, so the schema already carries the syntax. The description adds only indirect context about which accounts are eligible (is_active: false), which is useful but not parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Activate a connected account') plus the outcome ('so it can publish'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling chirpie_deactivate_account. An agent can tell what it does and on what entity without opening 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('accounts listed with is_active: false') and even a concrete example (extra Facebook Pages over plan limit). It also names the remedy when it fails (deactivating another account frees a slot), which routes the agent toward the sibling deactivate tool.

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