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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the link is meant to be sent to the end user, works in any browser, handles sign-in itself, and completes the connection without further tool calls. It omits link lifetime/expiry and whether the link is single-use, which is the main residual gap.

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, zero filler: what it is, what to do with it, when to use it. The most actionable instruction ('Send it to the user') lands early.

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 one-parameter read-only link generator with no output schema, the description covers what the link does, who it goes to, and when to call it. Missing only link-lifecycle details (expiry, single-use, whether re-calling returns the same URL) that an agent might reasonably need.

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% and the single `platform` parameter is fully enumerated and described as 'The channel to connect.' The description's 'a channel' wording restates the schema rather than adding format or selection guidance, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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 first sentence clearly identifies the output as a single connection link for a channel, and 'connects or reconnects' scopes it as an auth/linking artifact rather than analytics. The verb itself is carried by the title rather than stated in the description, but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_connected_platforms.

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 when-to-use conditions are given: 'Use when a channel is missing, or when get_connection_health says needs_reconnect,' which routes the agent from a sibling tool into this one. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative for the case where a channel exists and is healthy, but the positive triggers are concrete.

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