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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the types of IDs returned and which node types consume them, but it does not discuss empty results, failure modes, or response 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?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the core purpose before giving node-specific ID mappings and the connect_channel pointer. Sentence 2 slightly overlaps with sentence 1's phrase 'with the ids,' but overall the structure is clear and compact.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains what the agent gets back and why it matters. It could go deeper on exact output fields or pagination, but the critical platform-to-ID mapping is present, making the tool actionable.

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, so parameter documentation is not needed; the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the returned data instead, which is useful for an agent selecting and invoking the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it lists YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram accounts connected to the Treza account, and explains the purpose as providing IDs needed by publishing nodes. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like connect_channel, which is explicitly named as the action for adding a connection.

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 text implies when to use this tool: when a publishing node needs a channelId, openId, or igUserId, 'all come from here.' It also names connect_channel as the alternative for connecting a new account, giving a clear not-for-this-case. It does not explicitly enumerate all sibling distinctions, but the main routing decision is covered.

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