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

Discloses the link's lifetime (30 minutes), single-use nature, one-per-sub-account cardinality, and that it connects nothing by itself. It also states the security posture: no password or token is ever entered in the conversation, which the user handles in a short form. This is far richer than the openWorld/non-idempotent/non-destructive annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then constraints, then usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place, though the run-on first sentence packs several ideas together and could be split for faster scanning.

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 fully covers what is returned (a link), its validity window, its one-time nature, and what the caller must do (hand it to the person). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description usefully explains that the sub-account token and ID are supplied by the person in the form rather than as arguments, which resolves any agent confusion about missing inputs.

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: 'Get a link the person opens to connect one CRM (HighLevel) sub-account'. It names the platform (HighLevel) and the exact artifact produced, which cleanly separates it from connect_google, connect_meta, link_account, and account_links.

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?

'Use when a tool reports the platform is not connected, or when asked to connect it' gives an explicit trigger condition. It stops short of naming the alternative siblings (e.g. link_account) it should be preferred over, so routing between connect tools is only partly resolved.

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