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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the meaning of needs_reconnect, how repeated dead-token failures pause posting, that posts to such accounts are skipped, and that reconnecting clears the state automatically. This goes well beyond the annotations and prevents the agent from taking inappropriate actions.

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 focused and front-loaded: it states the core listing action first, then the returned fields, then the important needs_reconnect behavior and resulting instruction. Every sentence adds necessary value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the platforms, the return fields, the meaning of the critical needs_reconnect flag, the consequences for posting, and the correct user-facing action. No output schema is needed because the return shape is stated directly.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return fields instead of parameter details, matching the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('the user's connected social media accounts'), and enumerates the platforms covered. It also names the exact returned fields (account IDs, platforms, usernames, needs_reconnect), making the tool's role unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like list_posts or list_media.

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 makes clear when to use this tool: whenever connected social accounts need to be listed or inspected, including checking the needs_reconnect state. It also provides actionable guidance by instructing the agent not to post or retry against accounts in the needs_reconnect state and to tell the user to reconnect instead. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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