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 the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the 'for publishing' purpose framing and discloses nothing extra about return contents, pagination, or auth needs; with annotations carrying the load, this is an adequate but thin contribution.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficiently sized, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool whose purpose overlaps several siblings.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke. It nonetheless omits what a connection represents versus an account, what the nested query override does, and why brand_id is needed.

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 coverage is 67%: workspace_id and the nested query object are documented in the schema, while brand_id carries no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the brand_id gap, but the moderate coverage keeps this at the baseline.

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 (List) and resource (social connections) with a scope qualifier (for publishing). However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like aidelly_list_accounts or aidelly_list_connect_link_connections, so an agent could plausibly confuse the resources without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'for publishing' hints at context but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., list_accounts, list_connect_link_connections). The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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