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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, so the description's job is to add operational context, which it does: values are fetched live per account, some choices are mandatory, and omitting a page selection silently falls back to 'whichever the network considers default' — a real failure mode the agent should know. It stops short of describing latency, failure behavior for unconnected accounts, or return shape.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core concept and then the consequences of choosing wrong. The opening noun fragment is slightly awkward as a definition, but nothing is padding.

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 should convey what comes back (a list of ids+labels per source?) and whether unconnected accounts error or return empty — neither is stated. It also silently drops two of the seven enum sources, leaving Reddit handling entirely to the schema.

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 75% and the schema itself already carries the important conditional logic (mediaType for tiktokPrivacy, subreddit required for redditFlairs). The description enumerates five of the seven source values but omits redditSubreddits and redditFlairs entirely, so it adds flavor rather than compensating for the remaining gap.

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 makes clear this returns account-specific, network-sourced values (boards, playlists, privacy levels, Pages, LinkedIn orgs) rather than static metadata. The phrase 'values that only the network can give for a specific account' implicitly separates it from rule/option lookups, but it never names the near-identical siblings get_network_options or get_network_rules, so an agent must guess between them.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: 'you cannot pin without a board' establishes a hard prerequisite, and the note that Pages/organizations matter 'whenever one account manages several' tells the agent when ambiguity exists and must be resolved. What is missing is any explicit when-not or named alternative against get_network_options/get_network_rules.

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