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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey critical behavior: returns a consent_url, requires user action in a browser, and automatically binds the property. However, it doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if consent is rejected) or any rate limits. This is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but contains multiple important points. It is lengthy but front-loads the key trigger and outcome, and each sentence addresses a distinct aspect (when to use, consent_url handling, custom domain requirement, avoiding duplicate consent). A bit long but justifiably so given the complexity.

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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but signalled), the description doesn't need to detail the return format. It covers the key procedural steps: user consent in browser, automatic binding, and dependency on custom domain. It might be complete enough for an agent to execute the flow without additional help, though edge cases like failed consent are not addressed.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does explain the context parameter's purpose in a general way. As per calibration, baseline is 3 when schema fully covers parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to connect or reconnect Google Search Console for a site. It includes specific context (when get_search_console reported connected:false) and distinguishes this action from reading data. It also clarifies that it returns a consent_url, so the agent knows the immediate outcome without needing to inspect the output 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 explicitly says when to use this tool (right after get_search_console reported connected:false) and when not to use it (if report says already connected). It also gives clear alternatives: connect_domain first if requires_custom_domain is true. This strongly routes the agent to the correct action among siblings.

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