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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: credentials are validated against the login, stored encrypted, and never shown again, and the Bluesky account password must never be used instead of an app password.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence carries useful information about either credentials or handling. The credential breakdown makes it slightly dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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 4-parameter tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers credential sourcing, security handling, and the primary invocation path. It does not describe behavior when the account is already connected or when validation fails, which is a minor gap.

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 75%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds value: it explains where the WIP api_key comes from (wip.co settings), how to obtain a Bluesky app password (Settings → Privacy and security → App passwords), and explicitly forbids using the account password.

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 (connect) and resources (WIP and Bluesky social accounts), plus the downstream purpose (AimYear posting daily progress). An agent can distinguish this from list_social_accounts or delete_social_account without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: the app's connect screen normally calls this, and if a key is pasted into chat it should be used once and not repeated. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but there is little ambiguity about when to call this.

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