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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — that providerId is stable across handle changes — which prevents the agent from mistakenly keying on the mutable handle. It stops short of describing ordering or result size, but with an output schema present that gap is minor.

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 the purpose front-loaded followed by the downstream-usage hint. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or the schema.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: identifier stability and how to reuse providerId downstream. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's field notes about handle and providerId concern returned data rather than inputs, but they remain useful for interpreting the call correctly.

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 ('List the social accounts connected to the user's team'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like connect_channel or get_channel_analytics. It also names the two fields each returned account carries, so the agent knows the shape of the result.

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?

Goes beyond generic context by telling the agent exactly why and where to use the output: pass providerId to create_post_draft and get_channel_analytics. It doesn't state explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, but the downstream routing is clear enough to select this tool confidently.

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