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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining row semantics (entity_id null means primary account) and how the values are consumed by three other tools, though it says nothing about ordering, rate limits, or total-count behavior.

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?

One front-loaded paragraph that starts with what the tool returns, then defines the row fields, then explains how to use them elsewhere. Every clause adds information; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is listed, what the rows contain, what null means, and how the identifier is reused elsewhere. 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% and both parameters (page, page_size) are documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no pagination guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("list your connected social media accounts") and goes further by naming the two fields each row contains. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the resource is unique enough among the list_* tools that an agent can identify it immediately.

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 downstream usage: pass "{platform}:{entity_id}" as a user_platform_accounts key in create_launch, and the same entity_id as account_id in disconnect_connection and retry_launch. It never states exclusions or when NOT to call it, but for a discovery tool there are no plausible alternatives to exclude.

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