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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior and return fields, but doesn't mention whether the search is case-insensitive, partial vs exact match, pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no matches are found. For a read-only search tool, the lack of match semantics is a notable gap.

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, no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. It earns its place by adding return-field context, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. An agent needs to know match semantics (partial vs exact, case sensitivity) and what the response looks like beyond the listed fields. The description is adequate for a basic search but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says the query is a name to search for, which adds some meaning beyond the bare 'query' string property, but it doesn't specify format, minimum length, or whether it supports partial/fuzzy matching. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('connected social media accounts') and mentions the return fields (id, name, type, network). It is clear enough to distinguish from list_accounts, which presumably lists all accounts rather than searching by name, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies usage: search accounts by name when you need to find a matching account. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over list_accounts or other account-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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