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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds a valuable behavioral fact: the providerId remains constant when the handle changes. This is a subtle but important trait that an agent must know to avoid misusing the data. The description does not contradict annotations and goes beyond the simple read-only signal by explaining the meaning of the returned identifiers in relation to other tools. This justifies a 4.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral context about the providerId and its use in other tools. It is front-loaded with the action and remains dense without redundancy. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool that returns an array of accounts, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: it lists the accounts, identifies the key fields, and explains how to use a field downstream. The presence of an output schema means return shape is already handled, so the description does not need to duplicate that. Nothing necessary is missing, so a 5 is justified.

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 has no parameters; the schema contains no properties. With the schema coverage at 100%, there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. According to the calibration, a baseline of 4 applies for zero parameters because the schema is complete and the description does not need to explain anything. The description correctly omits parameter details.

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 (List) and resource (social accounts) and scopes it to the user's team. It also names key attribute concepts (handle, providerId) and distinguishes it from sibling functions like connect_channel and get_account_health by describing what it returns. This is unambiguous and serves as a clear pointer to the tool's function.

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 when to use the tool: to obtain providerId values that are stable identifiers for later use in create_post_draft and get_channel_analytics. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative listing tools, but the context makes the intended use clear. A 4 is appropriate because it provides clear context and downstream usage, though it stops short of explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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