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

Annotations cover non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world semantics, and the description adds real value on top: the returned auth_link must be opened by the user to complete authorization, and Pinterest connections require service_conditions_id and return no auth_link. It does not explain the two-step completion flow or what happens if the link is never opened.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the parameter mapping, then the prerequisite and exception. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no full explanation, yet the description still tells the agent what to do with auth_link. The prerequisite and the Pinterest edge case round out everything needed to invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds context the schema lacks: the semantic mapping of network_type_id values and the conditional rule that service_conditions_id is only needed for Pinterest custom applications.

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: creates an authorization link for connecting a social media profile, page or group. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling connections.list and connections.remove.

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 an explicit workflow prerequisite ('Call networks.list first to retrieve the required network_id') and names the exception path for Pinterest. It does not state when not to use this tool (e.g. versus re-authorizing an existing connection), so it falls just short of a full 5.

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