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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: the exact fields returned for each connected account, the 'one business each' cardinality, and the inclusion of the plan's brand limit. Minor gaps like pagination or error behavior are not material for a simple listing.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the main purpose before enumerating details. It is dense but not wasteful, though the long field enumeration could have been formatted more cleanly.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent will receive. It covers the core entities, the connected-account fields, content-type requirements, and the plan limit, making the tool callable without further inference.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing additional is needed.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('the account's brands') plus the connected social accounts and plan limit. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_platforms or create_brand.

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 clearly establishes that this is a read-only listing operation for brand and connected-account data, which makes the intended use obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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