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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the async nature of the flow, the two returned artifacts (authorize_url, poll_token), and the user-interaction step required. It omits any note on expiry, token lifetime, or failure handling, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the purpose comes first, then the return values, then the follow-up procedure. Every sentence carries information the agent needs to act.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description names the returned fields and describes the multi-step completion path, which is the key missing piece for a flow-initiation tool. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema already fully documents 'provider'. The description mentions Google/Outlook but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the enum, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Start an OAuth connect flow') and resource ('new Google or Outlook account'), and the provider scope implicitly separates it from connect_caldav_account, connect_ical_feed, and reauth_account. An agent can identify this as the tool for initiating a brand-new OAuth account connection 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?

Gives explicit workflow instructions: relay authorize_url to the user, then poll connect_account_status with poll_token until status leaves 'pending' — naming the sibling to use next. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., existing accounts → reauth_account, CalDAV → connect_caldav_account), so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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