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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it excels: it discloses that the tool returns an authorization link, that authorization happens in the user's browser, that the agent cannot perform it, and that no immediate connection is established. This directly shapes agent expectations and behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with 'Step one' and the key output ('Returns a link'). Every sentence earns its place: output, user-action requirement, and follow-up workflow. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description tells the agent what the tool returns, what cannot happen, what the agent should do next, and how to verify success. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and follow through on this tool correctly.

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%, with provider and token already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level details but does reinforce the provider distinction by naming GitHub and Google, which mirrors the schema enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies this as 'Step one of connecting a source' and explains that it returns a link for the user to authorize. It distinguishes itself from the sibling add_org_source by positioning connect_org_source as the initiating step, not the actual attachment step.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Step one'), what the agent must do ('give them the link and wait'), and what to call next (list_org_sources, then add_org_source, then list_org_sources again). This is precise routing guidance for the multi-step workflow.

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