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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The genuinely additive detail is that results come back as a flat list including sub-accounts, a return-shape behavior not in the annotations, but pagination, ordering, and result-size limits are unaddressed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope statement, and the create_post linkage is placed usefully at the end. The closing 'Read-only' sentence is near-redundant given the annotations, costing a little density.

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 does carry part of the return-value burden and handles it by describing the flat-list shape and the id field's meaning. It still omits pagination behavior and what account fields are returned, and leaves the nested query override and brand_id filtering unexplained, so it is only borderline complete for a 3-parameter tool with a nested object.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate but does not: brand_id and the nested 'query' override object are never explained, and the only parameter mention ('Requires workspace_id') merely restates the schema's required field. No filtering, format, or interaction semantics are added for the two undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every postable account in a workspace as a flat list') and clarifies scope by naming sub-account types (Facebook Pages, Instagram Business, LinkedIn company pages). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling aidelly_list_social_connections, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 usage context: it notes workspace_id is required and that each returned id is the account_id consumed by aidelly_create_post, which tells the agent exactly when this tool feeds a downstream call. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative for other account-related needs.

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