ghl_social_get_oauth_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavior details: it's a GET endpoint, returns platform-specific listings, and includes the URL path. No contradictions; the description enriches understanding beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with headings, a table, and flow steps. Each part adds value, though it is slightly verbose. The endpoint line and OAuth flow details are concise and informative.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description compensates with a table explaining return values per platform and the endpoint path. It covers the OAuth flow context and accountId dependency. Adequate for a read-only list tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description mentions accountId is from Step 1 but does not add significant new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema fully documents parameters.

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 'Get Available Accounts (Step 2 of 3)' and explicitly describes the tool as retrieving a list of available pages, channels, or locations for connection after OAuth. It distinguishes itself within the OAuth flow and per-platform return tables, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 usage guidance by positioning the tool as Step 2 of a three-step OAuth flow, instructing the agent to use it after Step 1 authentication. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the step-based context makes when-to-use clear.

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