read_social_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention a key behavior: returns 409 if the run is incomplete. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error handling beyond 409, or response structure (though output schema exists). The 409 disclosure adds some value but the description could be richer given no annotations.

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 core action and key output metrics, followed by usage guidance and a compact enumeration of filtering/ordering/pagination. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 7 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the critical 409 condition, and the main capabilities. It doesn't explain the response structure, but the output schema already covers that. The only minor gap is a lack of mention of prerequisites or what to do on a 409, but the description is otherwise quite complete.

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 parameters already have descriptions. The description adds a brief summary of filtering/ordering/pagination but essentially restates the schema. It doesn't add new semantics like parameter interdependencies or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 fetches per-account aggregates with specific metrics (follower count, total views, view/follower rate), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like read_social_results and read_result_summary by focusing on per-account aggregates of a completed run. The verb 'fetches' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 provides clear context on when to use ('Use it to see which accounts / influencers are driving results') and lists filtering, ordering, and pagination options. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but sibling tool names and the focus on per-account aggregates imply the distinction. No explicit when-not-to-use is stated, but the purpose is specific enough.

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