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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable traits beyond that: a 14-day expiry, and the key side-effect clarification that connecting 'links nothing to a client automatically' — accounts merely appear in list tools marked with the client's login. It does not discuss revocation or reuse behavior, keeping it at 4.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause. The four sentences are generally justified, though the third sentence ('Connecting links nothing to a client automatically...') is dense and the 'instead of granting the agency manager access' aside repeats a point already implied by the first sentence.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation-style tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, expiry, the client-side flow, and the post-connection state of accounts. It never states what the call returns (presumably the link itself) or whether the link can be revoked, which are the only notable omissions.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The prose restates the platform categories in human terms (Google, Meta, Business Profile, CRM, WordPress) and the client naming convention, which is mildly useful but largely mirrors the enum and schema text. 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Create a link the agency sends to one of ITS CLIENTS' — and immediately establishes the scope (client-side OAuth connection rather than agency manager access). This clearly separates it from siblings like connect_platform, link_account and create_client.

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 states the primary scenario explicitly: use this instead of granting the agency manager access, so the client signs in themselves. The full workflow (client opens it, sees who is asking and what it allows, signs in) is described. It does not name the alternative sibling tools (e.g. connect_platform, link_account) by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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