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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the tool itself grants nothing, the actual connect happens in the browser, and the token is stored server-side. It also discloses account scoping, which is non-obvious behavioral context not visible in the schema or annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, expected return, browser-based authorization flow, when to call, account scoping, and the disconnect alternative. Information is front-loaded and each clause adds distinct value.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the calling context, the browser flow, server-side token storage, account scoping, and prerequisite ordering. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior and usage rather than inventing parameter detail.

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 and resource ('Start connecting GitHub') and explicitly frames it as a prerequisite for findagent_import_repo / findagent_list_repos, which distinguishes it from those sibling tools. The mention of disconnecting also separates it from findagent_disconnect_github.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first if import_repo or list_repos reports github not connected.' It also addresses a common alternative need by directing users to findagent_disconnect_github first when switching GitHub accounts.

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