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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful context: tokens are masked in output, and Telegram entries have phone masked with no session/api_hash exposed. That is useful security/behavior detail beyond structured fields, though it doesn't discuss pagination or result shape.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the read tag and the core resource come first, then the platform enumeration, then the downstream ID contract. Several clauses are packed into one paragraph, which is efficient though slightly hard to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned account_id convention and the masking of tokens and Telegram phone data. It leaves out pagination and the shape of the list itself, which an agent would still need to know.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the load — and it does for platform, spelling out the full set of accepted codes (ig|fb|tw|tt|yt|li|th|wp|tg) and the omit-for-all default, plus what the two website parameters filter to. It never explains when to use website_id versus website_uuid, leaving that half of the ID parameters ambiguous.

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 and resource (list connected social accounts) with scope qualifiers: merchant-wide by default, optionally narrowed to one website. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_social_posts or sync_social_account.

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?

Tells the agent to omit platform to get all, and — critically — that the returned <platform>_account_id should be reused as account_id in other social tools, which is a real cross-tool routing instruction. It stops short of naming a direct alternative for filtered lookups, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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