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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine operational detail beyond annotations — the required read scope — but says nothing about what is returned, ordering, or whether disconnected accounts appear. That is an incremental but thin addition.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the auth prerequisite trailing. Slight redundancy between "list all" and the tool name keeps it below the top score, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate to invoke correctly. However, with no output schema present the description is the only place to indicate what a 'connected account' record contains, and it does not.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit. The empty schema is consistent with a 'list all' tool that applies no filtering.

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?

"List all connected social media accounts" gives a specific verb and a clearly distinct resource, so an agent can separate it from siblings such as list_contacts or list_campaigns. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it supersedes or contrasting scope, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 states a prerequisite (requires read scope) which is a real usage condition, but it offers no guidance on when to call this versus other listing tools or what to do when no accounts are connected. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explained.

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