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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write that doesn't interact with external systems. The description adds critical behavioral context: the link's 24-hour default lifetime and the platform constraint. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, permission requirements, or what happens if a link is created and never used.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then the platform list, then usage instructions. The long platform enumeration is necessary for clarity, though it slightly bloats the text. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the platform list could arguably be moved to the schema.

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 no output schema, the description properly explains the return value (a URL) and instructs the user to share it. It also includes the link's expiration behavior and the follow-up call, covering all needed context for correct invocation and post-invocation handling.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with defaults and enums. The description repeats the platform list and the expiresInHours override, adding no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a link') and resource (account-connection link), and uniquely distinguishes itself from siblings like list_accounts or create_workspace. The enumeration of supported platforms clarifies the scope without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states the condition ('without a Breakreach login'), the action ('Give the URL to the person to open in a browser'), and the follow-up step ('Call list_accounts afterwards to get the new account ids'). These are clear when-to-use and next-step instructions that leave no inference required.

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