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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine piece of behavioral context, that visibility is scoped to the current token, but the return contents it mentions (character limits, connection status) are already documented by the output schema, so the net addition is modest.

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 that states the action, the scope, and the payload with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 parameters, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining gap: whose accounts are returned and what fields matter. It does not mention ordering or whether the list is ever paginated, but with a zero-argument, token-scoped call that is a minor omission.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is closed (additionalProperties=false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

"List the connected social accounts this token can see" gives a specific verb, a specific resource, and an explicit authorization scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from list_posts and list_series, though it never explicitly says how it differs from the sibling list_platforms.

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 "this token can see" implies the tool is for discovering what accounts are available before acting on them, which is a usable hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer its place among the 24 siblings.

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