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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation surface is already flagged. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot convey: credentials stay server-side, and mutations go through a preview/confirmation step. It still doesn't say what state the token store changes, whether existing tokens are overwritten, or what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, but the opening sentence is pure title echo and occupies the front-loaded position that should carry the actual purpose. It is efficient but wastes its most valuable slot.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema the description could be adequate, but in a family of Amazon Ads auth/token tools it leaves the critical gap unresolved: an agent cannot tell whether this stores authorization tokens, refresh tokens, or something else, nor when to prefer it over the sibling auth tools.

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% for the single connectionId parameter, which already explains it must be an Amazon Ads connection owned by the authenticated user. The description's phrase "Uses your Nexscope Amazon Ads connection" reinforces but does not extend that meaning, so the 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?

The description largely restates the name and title ("store Tokens API") without saying what tokens, from where, or what happens on store. Only "Uses your Nexscope Amazon Ads connection" hints at the resource, and it does nothing to distinguish this from nearby siblings like nexscope_data_amazon_ads_refresh_token or nexscope_data_amazon_ads_authorize_url.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus refresh_token, authorize_url, or the developer-proxy ads tools in the same family. The only procedural hint is "Mutations require preview and confirmation," which describes a workflow step rather than selection guidance.

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