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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful runtime behavior: there is no pagination and all accounts are returned in one response. It does not detail the full record shape or error behavior, but those are less critical for a simple read-only list.

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?

Three short sentences cover purpose, sibling alternative, id reuse, and pagination behavior with no filler. The key exclusion (list_social_sets) is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete enough: it states what is listed, when to use the sibling instead, what the returned id is for, and that the response is unpaginated. No critical invocation or interpretation detail is missing.

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 schema has zero properties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, but it does clarify that the returned id can be used as accountId, which gives useful semantic context about the output.

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 states a specific verb-resource action: 'lists backward-compatible X account records.' It clearly distinguishes itself from xplanner_list_social_sets by naming the alternate for multi-platform posts, so an agent can disambiguate without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: for multi-platform posts, use xplanner_list_social_sets instead. It also explains when the returned id should be reused as accountId in idea, folder, and media flows, which is concrete selection and integration guidance.

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