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

Annotations only provide booleans (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds significant behavioral context: the URL is one-time, the system never sees passwords, the owner must authorize, and connecting at least one account triggers a publishing offer. This goes well beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention error handling or expiration edge cases.

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 description is a single dense paragraph where every sentence earns its place: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the user flow, the security guarantee, the ownership restriction, and the next step. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description implies the return value is a URL ('Mint a one-time URL') and points to social_accounts_list for status. It covers the full user journey and security model. It doesn't specify the exact response format or failure scenarios, but these are not essential for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% – both 'brand' and 'ttl_minutes' have clear descriptions ('Brand slug.' and 'How long the link stays valid. Default 60, maximum 7 days.'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Mint'), resource ('one-time URL'), and purpose ('connect social accounts'), listing target platforms. It distinguishes itself from sibling social_accounts_list by explicitly pointing to it as the result-checking tool, so an agent can tell them apart without ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly explains the workflow: the URL must be handed to the user, who authorizes on their own; the agent cannot do this step. It also instructs to 'Watch for the result with social_accounts_list,' providing a follow-up. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like telegram_link_create or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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