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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add workflow context, which it does: it is the sole discovery path for connectionId and a verification step after brand creation. It does not mention pagination, empty-state behavior, or error cases, but the value-add beyond annotations is real.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields before the workflow guidance. Every clause earns its place by tying the tool to specific downstream siblings.

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 it fully covers the discovery and verification roles. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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 already documented as coming from list_brands. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail about brandId, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-documented schema.

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?

Specific verb (Lists) plus resource (a brand's connected channel accounts) with the returned fields enumerated (id, channel id and name, account name, health). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools that cover posts, campaigns, competitors, and briefs.

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 — finding the connectionId that publish_post and schedule_post require — and asserts there is no other way to discover one. It also names a second use (confirming a create_brand connectSocialFirst connection landed before draft_first_post or generate_brand_guide), giving concrete when-to-use conditions tied to named siblings.

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