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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, but the description goes well beyond them: it details the returned fields, decodes has_x_premium (25,000 vs 280 character limit for X), and explains the operational consequence of needs_reconnect (posting paused, posts skipped, cleared automatically upon reconnect). That is the root-cause-plus-remediation context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds return fields and the needs_reconnect rule; every sentence carries information. The ten-platform enumeration in the first sentence is slightly bloated but defensible as scope-setting, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value, and it does so by enumerating the fields and interpreting the two non-obvious ones. Combined with complete safety annotations and zero parameters, nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance since there is none to give, and instead spends its words on the return shape.

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 (list) and resource (the user's connected social media accounts) and enumerates the exact platforms covered, which no sibling tool addresses. An agent can immediately distinguish this from list_posts, list_media, or list_analytics 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?

Clear context for when to reach for it (checking connected accounts and their health) and an explicit negative rule: do not post or retry against accounts flagged needs_reconnect, and tell the user to reconnect instead. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or explicitly framing this as a prerequisite step before create_post, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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