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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the return composition and specifically that only the 20 most recent plug runs are returned, which is a meaningful scope limit.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its inline definition, then the return contents. It is dense but every clause carries information; no filler. Slightly long, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining returns (configuration, activation, 20 most recent runs) and defines the domain term 'plugs'. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing, though platform scope could be clearer as a filter.

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% with the single account_id parameter documented (including its source, list_connections). The description reinforces that the scope is one connected account but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (Show/list) and resource (plugs), and helpfully defines what a plug is with concrete examples (reposting/resharing past a likes or reactions threshold). It also enumerates what is returned (config, activation state, recent runs). It does not name or differentiate against the obvious sibling configure_account_plug, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent would use it to inspect an account's plug setup and history — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as configure_account_plug for changing a plug. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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