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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the link lifetime (30 minutes), single-use nature, that credentials are never entered in the conversation, and that no connection happens without the human. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before handing a URL to a user, and it is consistent with the 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 action and resource, followed by only the constraints that change agent behavior: one-click flow, 30-minute single-use expiry, no credential entry, no self-connection, and the trigger condition. 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?

No output schema, but the description explains what the caller gets back (a link that the end user opens) and how it behaves (expires, single use). For a zero-parameter tool of this complexity, nothing an agent needs to call it and relay the result 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 there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 Meta ads (Facebook and Instagram ad accounts)'. It is decisively different from siblings like connect_google, connect_crm, and link_account, and it makes the crucial distinction that it returns a link rather than performing the connection itself.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: 'Use when a tool reports the platform is not connected, or when asked to connect it.' It also pre-empts the main misuse case by stating 'It connects nothing by itself', so an agent knows this is not a silent-connect operation.

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