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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the ids are the targeting keys for downstream tools and missing entries represent an unconnectable network, which shapes how an agent should react to the result. It stops short of describing return ordering or result size, keeping it at a 4.

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 sentences with no filler. The output shape comes first, then the imperative workflow instruction, so the most actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining missing pieces: the return fields and the downstream dependency on the returned ids. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is absent.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no schema-level argument meaning to add. The description helpfully compensates for the absent output schema by naming the three fields each account record carries.

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 ('Lists the social accounts connected to Broadcast') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, platform, handle), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_post or list_feeds, which operate on different resources.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call it first' and names the three dependent tools (schedule_post, validate_post, update_post) that consume the returned ids. It also states the negative condition: a network absent from this list cannot be posted to until the user connects it, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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