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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it explains that no credential is returned, that the call can fail with URL-elicitation error -32042, that repeat calls are safe, and that credentials are per account rather than per platform. These details materially help an agent handle the OAuth-like flow.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the remaining sentences each add operational detail about errors, reauthorisation, account ambiguity, and setup blockers. The length is justified by the complexity of the connection flow.

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?

Despite the existing output schema, the description covers the critical edge cases an agent must know: the browser link return path, the -32042 error, repeat-call safety, per-account credential scope, and ambiguous-account behavior. It is complete for a two-parameter, open-world connection 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description richly explains account_id: it selects the account being fixed, and omitting it triggers fleet-wide behavior with needs_reauth[] and healthy[] when accounts disagree. The platform parameter is less explicitly described, though its enum values make its meaning clear.

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 a specific verb and resource: connect a social account or re-authorise an expired credential. It clearly distinguishes this from simple account listing by explaining the link-returning and reauthorisation flow.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: connect or reconnect, omit account_id for a fleet-wide check, and provide account_id when resolving a specific account. It also explains the ambiguous-account fallback behavior, leaving little inference needed.

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