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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: failed attempts are included by default, and the field set returned (platform, initiator, outcome, error code) is disclosed with no output schema present.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the scoping statement and the required parameter. The closing 'Read-only' clause duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the only wasted text.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and notes that failures are included, and it names the required parameter. It falls short on pagination behavior (cursor/limit) and on how outcome filtering interacts with the default result set.

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 17% (just the nested 'query' property), so the description must carry the load, but it only states that workspace_id is required. It says nothing about limit, cursor, brand_id, or the success/error enum on outcome, leaving five of six parameters semantically unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource (list social-connect/OAuth attempts in a workspace) and enumerates the returned attributes (platform, initiator, outcome, error code). It also explicitly separates this tool from the sibling aidelly_list_accounts, so an agent can distinguish them 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?

It gives a concrete diagnostic use case ('diagnosing why a client could not connect an account') and names the contrasting sibling that lists successfully connected accounts. There is no explicit when-not-to-use rule, which keeps it just short of the top band.

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