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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses the concrete impact (traffic/ranking reports stop) and, crucially, the two-step confirm flow: first call returns a summary and confirmToken, second call proceeds. This is behavioral detail the annotations do not capture and is exactly what an agent needs to avoid an accidental destructive call.

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 no waste, purpose front-loaded, then consequence, then the confirmation protocol. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the first call returns (summary plus confirmToken). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about how confirmToken is meant to be used across calls ('first call... call again with confirmToken to proceed'), reinforcing the token lifecycle beyond the schema's field description.

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 ('Removes the Google Search Console connection') and is immediately distinguishable from the sibling disconnect_bing. It also names the concrete consequence (traffic and ranking reports stop), so the agent knows exactly what the operation affects.

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 clear context for when the tool is relevant and names the recovery path via get_connect_link, which is effectively the alternative the agent would use instead. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it, but the destructive framing plus the revert pointer covers most selection needs.

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