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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds the non-obvious mechanic: the link opens Nuira and the user approves access on the provider's screen, and nothing is connected by calling the tool. That is exactly the context an agent needs to avoid telling a user the job is done.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by usage and the approval caveat; no filler. The first sentence is a little dense to parse, slightly blunting the front-loading.

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 still explains what comes back (a link per source plus connected status) and what happens after the call (user approves on the provider screen). For a one-parameter, annotation-covered tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the single property is an unexplained enum, so the description has to carry the load; 'Pass source to get one link' supplies the key semantic that omitting the parameter returns links for all sources. It does not describe the enum members, but those are self-describing platform names.

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 states the concrete artifact returned (one link per data source) and its two effects: connecting a new source or reconnecting a failing one, plus whether the source is already connected. It also undercuts a misleading name/title by clarifying that calling it does not itself connect anything, so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only status tools in the sibling list.

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?

It gives the trigger conditions explicitly: the user asks to connect or reconnect a store, ad account or email platform, or get_data_status reports a source missing or in error. It also names the alternative reading path (pass source for one link, omit for all), so both the when and the variant choice are specified.

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