List accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'x' is always returned even when the user has not connected it, and posting to it 'waits for the user' — a quirk the agent could not infer from schema or 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the account-type list and the x caveat both earn their place. The nested parenthetical '(and Facebook Pages and Instagram professional accounts, where available)' is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly what is missing: what entities come back, the edge case of the always-present 'x' account, and the downstream consumer of the returned ids. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's only parameter-adjacent content is about the return value ('the ids publish_post needs'), which is useful since no output schema exists.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the accounts the user can publish to') and then enumerates the account types returned (LinkedIn profiles, Facebook Pages, Instagram professional accounts, plus 'x'). This is clearly distinct from siblings like publish_post or get_post, which operate on posts rather than account inventory.

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 final clause 'Returns the ids publish_post needs' tells the agent this is the prerequisite lookup step before calling publish_post. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., don't call this to verify a completed post), but the intended position in the workflow is unambiguous.

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