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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description usefully adds the 10-minute link lifetime and an explicit non-capability note ('this tool holds no Google access itself'). It does not describe what happens on repeated calls or whether a prior link is invalidated, but the added TTL and auth-scope context is real value beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the parameter instruction, then the TTL/capability caveat. The parenthetical 'where it keeps the papers of the work' is slight flavor but does clarify what 'Drive' means in this product's world.

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?

Read-only, one parameter, no output schema, so the description needs to convey the return value implicitly — 'the link a person opens in their browser' does that adequately, and the 10-minute expiry closes the main open question. Slightly more on what the caller should do with the returned link would make it complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter, baseline is 3-4; the description adds meaningful provenance by telling the agent the slug comes from list_tommos, which the schema's terse 'The tommo's slug' does not.

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+resource ('The link a person opens in their browser to connect a tommo's own Google account') and scopes what is being connected (Drive and mailbox). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling link_to_connect_a_calendar and link_to_connect_your_mailbox.

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?

Gives the prerequisite for the only parameter ('Name the tommo by its slug (from list_tommos)'), routing the agent to the right lookup tool. It implies the context (connecting a tommo's Google account) but never states when-not to use it or how it relates to the calendar/mailbox connect-link siblings.

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