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

readOnlyHint already declares this a safe read, and the output schema covers return shape. Beyond that, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: providerId is stable when a handle changes, making it the durable key. That is real value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the downstream hand-off detail follows logically.

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 a 0-parameter schema, full description coverage, and an output schema handling return values, an agent has everything needed. The description correctly focuses on scope and the key stable identifier rather than restating outputs.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because there is none to add; it instead clarifies how the output's fields should be reused downstream.

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 with scope: 'List the social accounts connected to the user's team.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from connect_channel or the draft/post tools in the sibling set.

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 clear downstream context: the returned providerId should be passed to create_post_draft and get_channel_analytics, which tells the agent why to call this first. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or contrasting with connect_channel/list_teams, so it is not a full 5.

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