list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: tokens are never returned, learned_voice never overwrites the saved brand profile, performance_profile requires Pro or higher and is absent for platforms without per-post analytics, and connect sessions must be polled with a plain-language update. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then ordered by view, with no filler sentences. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, and the long first sentence compresses two ideas, but every clause carries operational information.

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 six-parameter, four-mode dispatcher with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, return contents at a high level, plan gating, and polling termination. It stops short of describing pagination or the full row shape beyond connection_status, which is the only remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not state: view=accounts accepts one workspace_id or one account_id, implying mutual exclusivity. It also ties each parameter to its view, though per-parameter detail largely duplicates the schema.

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 first sentence states the resource and its scope (connected social accounts plus learned data), and the four views are each given a distinct verb-like definition. An agent can distinguish this from connect_account, disconnect_account, and create_connect_session 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?

Explicit routing is given per view, including that view=accounts is the default, that connection=needs_reconnect is the way to narrow to broken accounts, and that connect_session should be polled until status is connected, failed, cancelled, or expired. It also names a prerequisite check (inspect Instagram rows before using user_tags or collaborators), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance a sibling-heavy tool needs.

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