List connected accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no extra credit is needed for safety. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: accounts with error_code other than 0 cannot publish until reconnected, and this interpretation is the usual answer to publication failures. This goes beyond annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the returned data.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and key fields; the second provides a high-value diagnostic use case. Every word earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers the important error_code implication. Combined with the schema's parameter documentation, the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, though a brief note on pagination filters would round it out.

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 60%, with capability, social_network, and id_organization documented in the schema. Limit and offset lack descriptions but are standard pagination parameters with clear numeric constraints. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so it neither compensates for the undocumented args nor adds value beyond the schema, but the existing schema is mostly adequate.

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 resource: social accounts connected to an organization, and enumerates the returned fields (network, name, follower count, connection broken status). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_organizations, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a concrete, practical trigger: use this tool when diagnosing why a post did not go out, since a broken connection indicated by error_code is a likely cause. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions but provides clear contextual guidance.

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