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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: parameter precedence when account_id and platform are both supplied, that credential platforms return credential_fields consumed by connect_account, and which view returns account-specific capabilities. It does not discuss response size, pagination, or auth requirements.

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?

Dense but front-loaded by view, and each clause carries usage or return information rather than filler. The heavy use of semicolons and stacked parentheticals makes it slightly hard to scan, and the opening noun-phrase fragment is not a clean lead sentence.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so per view (platform capabilities and limits, settings schema for one account, connection links with readiness and credential_fields). It never states the general response shape or how large the platforms view is, leaving a minor gap for a 6-param, 0-required discovery tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema cannot: which parameters apply to which view, the account_id-vs-platform precedence rule, and the reason account_id is preferred. The include_planned and target examples largely restate the schema enum, so not every addition is net-new.

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 enumerates the three distinct resources the tool surfaces (platforms, settings schemas, connection links) and ties each to a view value, so an agent understands this is a multi-view introspection tool rather than a simple list. The terse opener 'Platforms, settings schemas, and connection links.' is a fragment that doesn't name the verb, so the tool's scope has to be inferred from the view breakdown that follows.

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?

Explicit when-to-use for each view, including the preference for account_id over platform ('account_id wins if both are given') and the prerequisite ('needed before Instagram native tags/collaborators'). It names the alternative sibling create_connect_session with the exact condition that selects it ('guided flow with pollable status'), which is exemplary routing guidance.

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