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

With no output schema, the description carries the full semantics of the returned data: what `is_active: false` means, the exact vocabulary of `inactive_reason`, the consequence that a revoked token cancels scheduled posts with quota returned, and that reconnecting never needs a free slot. This is materially more than the readOnly/idempotent annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded and each clause carries real information, but it is delivered as one dense, over-parenthesized block that mixes this tool's return semantics with sibling-tool behavior (what deactivate cancels, what reconnect requires). Structure would benefit from separating what this call returns from cross-tool guidance.

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?

For a parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the fields an agent must interpret to act correctly and explains the LinkedIn `account_type` distinction. Nothing essential for correct use or follow-up action 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The mentions of `accounts_limit` and `accounts_active` describe returned fields, not inputs.

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 first clause states a precise verb+resource ('List connected social accounts') and enumerates every platform covered. An agent immediately knows this is the enumeration tool for connection state, distinct from the many chirpie_connect_* siblings.

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 routes follow-up actions clearly: `inactive_reason` of `plan_limit` points to chirpie_activate_account, while `token_revoked`/`token_expired`/`reauth_required` require a fresh connect, and it notes retrying a post will not reactivate an account. It never explicitly frames when to call this lister itself versus checking state elsewhere, but the context is unambiguous.

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