check_social_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about default shallow listing and the ability to request more detail, but it doesn't mention output structure, potential side effects, or edge cases. This is a read-only operation, but the absence of annotations means more transparency would be expected.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a relevant use case. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states the tool's scope, usage context, and how to adjust verbosity. The schema fills in parameter details. Minor gaps remain regarding the exact fields returned at each verbosity level, but these are not critical for a list 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?

The schema covers both parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description only repeats that detail can be set to medium/full, which the schema already explains thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all connected and disconnected social accounts for the active brand.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (social accounts), and the added use case 'Run before posting to confirm platform availability' further clarifies intent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disconnect_social_account.

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 description provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('Run before posting to confirm platform availability') and how to control output verbosity ('pass detail=medium/full'). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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