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

Annotations only declare safety flags (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the description adds real value by disclosing that the returned URL is short-lived, hosted, and intended for an end user rather than the calling agent. It still omits what happens on expiry, how redirectUrl/errorUrl affect the flow, and whether repeated calls invalidate prior links.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the outcome (a hosted connect URL) is stated immediately. It is efficient, though 'short-lived' is asserted without the duration that would make the statement actionable.

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, five parameters at 20% coverage, and a side-effecting flow-oriented tool, the description should explain link expiry, the role of redirectUrl/errorUrl/state, and how it differs from sibling connect-url tools. None of that is present, leaving an agent under-informed about a tool whose output is consumed by a third party.

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 only 20% (only 'channel' is annotated), so the description carries a heavy burden and supplies almost nothing: brandId, redirectUrl, state, and errorUrl are never explained. The prose only loosely hints that a brand and a platform are involved, which is weaker than what the enum on 'channel' already provides.

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: returns a short-lived hosted URL that guides an end user through connecting a social platform to a brand. An agent can tell what the tool produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like connected_accounts_create_connect_url or connected_accounts_facebook_connect_link, which appear to do the same job for specific platforms.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives, despite heavy sibling overlap (connected_accounts_create_connect_url, connected_accounts_google_connect_link, connected_accounts_facebook_connect_link). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'walks an end user through connecting.'

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