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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the burden — and it does disclose the key trait that credentials are write-only and never returned, which matters for a tool taking a secrets object. It stops short of stating success/failure semantics or whether verification is needed (check_connection_status exists as a sibling), so it is strong but not complete.

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 tightly written sentences with the routing condition front-loaded after the primary purpose. However, the trailing artifact '[#c9093d]' is stray noise that does not belong in a tool description and costs a point.

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 exists, yet the description never says what a successful connection yields or whether the agent should follow up with check_connection_status. Everything else an agent needs — provider routing, credential secrecy, required identifiers via schema — is covered.

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% and each parameter already names its source (list_my_stores, list_connectable_providers, list_connectable_providers) plus the workspace omission caveat. The description adds nothing per-parameter beyond the write-only credential note, which is behavioral rather than semantic — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Connect an API-key sales channel ... to a store') and immediately scopes the provider set to WooCommerce and Wix. It also names the sibling it is not (start_channel_connect) and gives the reason, so an agent can discriminate without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: use this tool for API-key channels, use start_channel_connect for Shopify and TikTok Shop because they need a browser. The schema further points to list_connectable_providers for provider_uuid, completing the prerequisite chain.

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