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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the tool does not actually connect or grant access, reports state, behaves differently per state, and that the result is a user-facing approval card. It even warns about the API-key alternative, giving strong behavioral context.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: the tool's nuanced states, required user actions, and don'ts all need explanation. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the formatting (including the warning marker) makes critical behavior easy to spot.

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 there being no output schema, the description names the exact response keys an agent needs ('connection_required', 'already_connected', 'you_have_access', 'ask_with_marker') and explains what to do in each case. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, this is fully complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces toolkit_slug significance with examples and notes that only Dock-supported apps are accepted, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Ask your owner to connect a third-party app... so you can use its tools.' It also explicitly differentiates this tool from a direct connection by stating 'It does NOT connect anything and does NOT give you access,' which clearly sets it apart from sibling request and access tools.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it when a task needs an app you cannot currently reach.' It also provides exclusions and alternatives by warning against repeated calls, distinguishing the two response states, and explicitly forbidding asking for API keys instead.

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