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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by explaining what the returned ids are for and which id type each downstream node consumes, filling the gap left by the absent output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it lists, what the ids feed, and where to go to add one. Front-loaded with the resource and zero filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so for the key ids. It does not describe the shape of the list entries (names, platform fields, ordering), which would be the last piece an agent might want.

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; there is nothing the description could add or omit. It correctly avoids inventing filter parameters.

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?

Names the specific resource (YouTube channels and TikTok accounts connected to the Treza account) and states what the result is for (ids a publishing node needs). It is clearly distinguishable from connect_channel, its closest sibling, without opening either 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?

Gives concrete context for use (a youtube-upload node needs channelId, a tiktok-upload node needs openId) and routes the connect case to connect_channel. It stops short of stating exclusions or when the list would be empty, but the applicable scenario is unmistakable.

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