list_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying 'connected' and 'current workspace', but it does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, or that results can be filtered by provider/capability. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple list tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant words and is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.

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 straightforward list tool with two optional filters, the description is largely complete. It specifies the resource and scope, and the schema covers the filters. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the agent lacks details on return format or safety, but this is not critical for a simple read 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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for provider and capability filters. No compensation is needed.

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 action ('list'), the resource ('connected social media accounts'), and the scope ('current workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts and list_workspaces, which target different resources.

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 usage is implied by the resource name: use this to retrieve connected accounts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description provides context but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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