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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: only active connected accounts are returned, and the result is a prerequisite input for schedule_post. It omits any note on result size/pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, no filler. The scoping/return statement comes first and the prerequisite guidance second, both of which directly affect invocation.

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 carries the burden of describing results and does so (account ID, platform, display name). For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and consume the result.

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 schema baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed; nothing further is required or missing.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the user's active connected social accounts') plus the returned fields (account ID, platform, display name). It is clearly separable from neighbors such as list_account_plugs, list_workspaces and list_publish_options.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('Call this before scheduling') and why: schedule_post needs the connected_account_id. It also gives the eligibility rule that a post can only target a connected, active account, so the agent knows exactly when this tool is the right prerequisite step.

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