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

Annotations already say non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the link expires in 7 days and is returned rather than delivered, which directly shapes what the agent must do next. It does not explain whether repeat calls mint additional links or invalidate prior ones, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences: what it creates, its lifetime and delivery semantics, then a usage cue. The most decision-relevant facts come first and nothing is padded.

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 only two params and no output schema, the description covers actor, lifetime, and delivery, which is sufficient to call and follow up correctly. The one gap is that the return value ('returned for you to share') is not characterized beyond that phrase, and re-invocation behavior is unstated.

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%, including a pointer to list_brands for brand_id and guidance for user_goal, so the schema does the parameter work. The description mentions no parameter by name and adds nothing beyond that baseline.

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 ('Create a private link a CLIENT opens to connect their own social accounts to this brand') and pins down the distinguishing constraint, 'with no Mondovo login', which separates it from ordinary OAuth/connect flows. An agent knows exactly what artifact this produces.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering utterance ('send my client a link to connect their Instagram') plus the key exclusion that the tool does not send anything, so the agent knows the delivery step is on them. It stops short of naming an alternative or saying when not to use it versus get_social_connect_link or set_linked_social_accounts.

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