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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the token requirement and the graceful-degradation behavior ("without one it explains how to connect"). It stops short of describing pagination or the exact response shape, but neither is materially relevant here.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool shows before the prerequisite. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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-param read-only tool with an accurate readOnly annotation, the description covers what it does, what it surfaces, the auth requirement, and the failure path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no parameter guidance because none 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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and precise resources (the connected Picorn account and its linked social media accounts). It is easily distinguished from siblings like picorn_social_accounts_connect, which mutates state, whereas this only reports it.

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 a clear precondition — a personal Picorn access token is required — and states the fallback behavior when it is missing. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to use, but for a zero-param read-only status tool the usage context is unambiguous.

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