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

Annotations only give readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints; the description goes further by explaining the two possible outcomes (browser sign-in link vs. a link to finish in Zenning) and the security property that credentials never pass through the chat. That is real added context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about idempotency or rate limits.

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 action and discovery dependency, with each sentence contributing distinct information (routing, flow outcomes, scope boundary). No filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where the input comes from, and what the caller receives in return (a link). Combined with annotations that establish the safety profile, nothing essential is missing.

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 both parameters are documented there, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail about 'name' or 'type' beyond what the schema already says.

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 (connect) plus resource (app), scopes it to apps surfaced by find_apps, and distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming the discovery tool. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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 ties usage to find_apps output and clarifies the scope boundary ('adds a connection; never edits or removes one'), which rules out misuse as an update/delete path. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or stating prerequisites, so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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