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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the exact fields returned and the fact that no alternative tool exposes connectionIds, which shapes how the agent should reason about the call.

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 tightly written sentences: the first declares what is returned, the second covers the two usage scenarios with named downstream tools. No filler, and the most important routing information (only source of connectionId) is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and with a single fully-documented parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to select or call this tool is missing.

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 100% and the single brandId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its source, list_brands). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (a brand's connected channel accounts) and even enumerates the returned fields (id, channel id/name, account name, health). An agent can distinguish this immediately from siblings like list_brands or list_posts.

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?

Explicitly states the primary use case (obtaining the connectionId that publish_post and schedule_post require) and asserts it is the only discovery path, plus a second use case (confirming a create_brand connectSocialFirst connection landed before draft_first_post or generate_brand_guide). This is when-to-use guidance with named consumers.

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