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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: that tokens require human reconnection, that restricted automations pause and auto-resume when Meta lifts the restriction, and that scheduled posts/automations will fail until resolved. This discloses consequences and required human actions that no annotation conveys.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every parenthetical earns its place by defining a status and its consequence. It is dense with nested parentheses, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by defining the status values it returns (reconnect/expiring/restricted) and their downstream effects. An agent has everything needed to interpret results and advise next steps.

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 per the baseline rule a 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'List connected accounts that need attention,' then enumerates the exact categories of attention (token expired/expiring, Meta-restricted pages). This clearly distinguishes it from the generic list_accounts sibling, which lists all accounts rather than problem accounts.

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?

It gives strong context on what each returned state means and what action follows (reconnect in Ignix; automations paused and self-resuming for restricted). However, it never explicitly names when NOT to use it or points to sibling alternatives like list_accounts or sync_accounts, leaving routing inferences to the agent.

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