List channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by itemizing the returned fields, including non-obvious ones like per-format picture shapes and per-platform limits, which matter when composing posts. It does not mention auth scope or ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its fields, ending with the actionable channelIds hint. The parenthetical listing of limits is dense but readable; a bulleted breakdown would scan faster but this earns its space.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so field by field including the easily-missed aspect/picture-shape data. For a zero-parameter read-only list, nothing an agent needs before calling or interpreting results is missing.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly spends no words on input syntax and instead spends them on output semantics.

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?

States a specific resource (connected social accounts in this workspace) and enumerates exactly what each entry carries: id, platform, status, limits (text length, hashtags, clickable links) and per-format aspect ratios. The terminology 'channels' vs 'connected social accounts' is reconciled by the mention of channelIds, so an agent knows precisely what it gets back.

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?

The closing sentence, 'Use the ids as channelIds when creating posts,' gives clear downstream context: call this first to resolve channel identifiers before any post-creation tool. It does not name an alternative or an exclusion, but no sibling tool lists channels, so there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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