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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the personal vs. team scope, which is not captured in the annotations. It does not discuss pagination or return format, but the output schema covers that.

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 two concise sentences, with the primary purpose first and the parameter behavior second. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description, combined with complete schema annotations and an output schema, provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope and behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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%, with the team_id parameter already thoroughly documented ('Team ID to list team accounts. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, lists personal accounts.'). The description essentially repeats this information, adding marginal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connected social media accounts'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on social media accounts rather than connectors or other resources. The team_id parameter adds a scope distinction that further clarifies the purpose.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the optional team_id parameter ('Pass team_id to see a team's accounts instead of your personal ones'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear for a simple listing tool.

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