Connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the scope of what is inspected: app configuration, per-account sign-in health, default account, login type, media host, AI providers, and Meta API usage. It does not describe the response shape, but as a read-only probe the behavioral picture is adequate.

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?

One dense sentence enumerating report contents, followed by a short imperative directing first use. The enumeration is long but each item is a distinct diagnostic field, so it earns its place. The directive is front-loaded at the end where it is most visible.

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 burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by naming each reported facet. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it first is missing; only the exact response structure remains unspecified, which is a minor gap for a status probe.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, always-callable diagnostic.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Show whether the Meta app is configured, which Instagram accounts are connected') and enumerates the concrete states it reports. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ai_status, media_host_status, and list_accounts because it aggregates configuration/health rather than listing or mutating anything.

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 first in a new conversation.' That is strong, actionable guidance for an agent at the start of a session. It does not state when-not-to-use it or name alternatives, which keeps it just below a 5.

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