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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral fact that nothing is actually connected until the owner signs in on the platform's page — valuable context for an agent reporting status. It stops short of explaining link lifetime/expiry or single-use semantics, which matter for a generated URL.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by the network nuance and the two routing alternatives. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 covers what the call produces at a conceptual level (links the owner opens) and the deferred-connection behavior. It does not specify the return shape (URL field, whether multiple platform links come back), which is the one remaining gap for a link-generating tool.

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?

brand_id and user_goal are already described in the schema; the only added meaning is 'optionally one platform', which hints that platform is optional and single-valued but leaves unclear what omitting it yields (links for all networks vs. a generic link). At 67% schema coverage the schema does most of the work, so this sits at the 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 precisely what the tool produces (links the owner opens, signed into Mondovo, to connect a social account to a brand) and adds scoping nuance (a second account on the same network is fine). It names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 routing: use create_client_connect_link for a CLIENT's own accounts, and use reconnect_url from list_social_accounts for a dead account. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use cases are covered with named alternatives.

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