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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the operation is FREE, explains how channel availability works, clarifies Instagram Story behavior by accountType, and defines queue-slot timing semantics. It also warns that Meta sign-in cannot run inside chat and must happen in the browser. These are substantial behavioral details beyond structured annotations.

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 purpose and usage rule are front-loaded, and most clauses earn their place because there is no output schema to document return fields. However, the description is a single dense paragraph with multiple nested clauses, so structure could be improved for readability.

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 and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It defines the key response fields, accountType semantics, available status, queueSlots format, nextQueueSlot ISO-8601 behavior, and connectUrl usage. That is complete for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to explain and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends its detail on return-value semantics instead.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: listing the user's connected Instagram and Threads accounts. It enumerates the channel fields returned and explicitly differentiates the tool from antix_compose_social_post by stating it should be called first. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 an explicit sequencing rule: call this BEFORE antix_compose_social_post because only channels with available:true can be posted to. It also names the alternative workflow for connecting or reconnecting a channel through the browser and connectUrl. Feature-gated guidance for collaborators and tagging is also included.

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