list_social_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose useful return content (connection IDs, names, platforms, status). However, it does not explicitly state this is a non-mutating read, nor address pagination, ordering, or whether all connections are always returned without the platform filter.

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 with no waste: the resource and scope come first, followed immediately by the returned fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-optional-param list tool with no output schema but with the return shape summarized in prose, the description is essentially complete. Minor gaps are pagination and explicit read-only assurance, which are low-risk for a listing operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single optional platform filter is already fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond implying platform filtering via the enumerated platforms; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (connected social media accounts/pages) and enumerates the supported platforms and returned fields. It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which are publish/schedule/update/pipeline operations rather than reads of connection inventory.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to discover connection IDs before calling publish_social_post or schedule_social_post. It never states when to use this versus alternatives, whether results are paginated, or any prerequisites (auth, workspace scoping).

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