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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable semantics beyond that: the three terminal/intermediate states and what payload accompanies connected (accountId) and failed (error), which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 sentence with the state machine front-loaded and zero filler; every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return-value contract (pending/connected/failed plus accountId/error), which is the key missing piece. Only polling cadence or timeout guidance is absent, a minor gap for such a simple 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 50%: state is documented in the schema and reinforced by 'started with start_oauth_connect', while provider is an enum that is largely self-explanatory. The description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate for a two-param tool.

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 (Poll) and resource (OAuth connect) and links to the sibling start_oauth_connect that originates the flow. An agent can immediately distinguish it from start_oauth_connect and other tools.

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?

Makes clear it is used after start_oauth_connect to poll status, implicitly the follow-up to that tool. It does not state polling cadence, when to stop polling, or state expiry, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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