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

Annotations already say this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the user taps the link without an account, and the connection then applies to 'this conversation'. It does not disclose link/code expiry, whether repeated calls mint additional links (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or whether the call returns immediately or waits for the user to tap.

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 condition and the deliverable, with the search exclusion placed last where it reads naturally. Minor wordiness in 'get a link for your user to open and a connection code for you', but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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-optional-param connection tool with no output schema this covers the essentials: why to call it, what it produces, and who acts next. It is incomplete on the mechanics an agent needs in practice — expiry of the link/code, whether the connection persists across sessions, and whether calling twice issues two links — but it is not misleading.

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?

There is a single optional 'client' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it as the assistant/product name kept for Truvon's records and never shown to the user. The description adds nothing about this parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 concrete outcome: obtain a link for the user and a connection code for the assistant so that reporting tools accept the connection in this conversation. It is distinguishable from the report_* siblings because it is an auth/connection step rather than a reporting action. The phrasing 'get a link for your user to open and a connection code for you' is slightly convoluted but still conveys the resource produced.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('When your app has not signed in to Truvon itself') and an explicit exclusion ('Searching needs none of this'), which rules out the find_local_businesses / search path. The gap is that the reporting siblings are never named, so the agent must infer that report_answer, report_outcome etc. depend on this step rather than being told directly.

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