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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them ("only reads the channel and the account"). Beyond the annotations it discloses the full outcome space — status:'auth_required' with authUrl, status:'rejected' without a link — plus the three rejection reasons and the required agent behavior for each, and notes that the user completes authentication in the browser.

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 capability statement is front-loaded and the follow-up guidance is appended where it belongs. The error-branching sentence is dense and arrow-delimited, which makes it scannable but slightly compressed; a small amount of restructuring would improve first-pass readability without changing length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, enumerating both status values and the fields that accompany each. For a two-parameter read tool with branchy outcomes and a human handoff, nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 only 50%: channel_api_code is documented in the schema, but project_id is not. The description compensates by stating "project_id is optional for a single-project account" and by pointing channel_api_code at list_order_channels, so both parameters now carry meaning an agent could not get from the schema alone.

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 the browser setup link for a new standalone order connection." It immediately distinguishes itself from get_order_connection, test_order_connection and configure_order_connection by scoping to the setup-link retrieval step only.

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 names the trigger ("Use this when the user wants to add a standalone order connection") and the prerequisite path (channel from list_order_channels). It also rules out adjacent capabilities ("does not create a connection, save credentials or start OAuth") and hands off to get_order_overview / test_order_connection / configure_order_connection afterwards.

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