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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, closed-world state change. The description reinforces the effect (progress consolidated) but says nothing about prerequisites, whether the link can be undone, or what happens if the code is invalid or expired. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not additive.

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, with the primary use case front-loaded ahead of the exclusions. The two exclusion sentences are somewhat boilerplate for an account-linking tool but they are brief and do not obscure the main instruction.

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?

Both parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, so invocation is safe, but the description does not explain the outcome of a successful link or what the tool returns/asks for when inputs are omitted. For a simple two-optional-parameter linking tool this is close to sufficient, with a modest gap on post-call behavior.

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%, and the schema already explains both 'tap' and 'code' in detail, including the behavior of leaving code empty. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'connect this chat to their 2hives app or website account,' and adds the outcome ('progress is in one place'). It doesn't name a competing sibling tool explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from read tools like get_my_2hives_data or my_progress.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants to connect this chat to their account') and explicit exclusions ('not for medical questions, emergencies or a crisis' and 'not for general chat about meditation'). It stops short of naming the correct alternative tools for those excluded cases, so routing is left partially to inference.

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