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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive call), the description discloses the human-in-the-loop nature, the security constraint against secrets in chat, the session expiry, and the required polling handoff. That is substantial behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the action, the id source, the prohibition, and the follow-up loop arrive in that order with no filler. The final sentence restating sessionId, connectUrl, and expiresAt is mildly redundant with the output schema, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

For a two-param tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to call it, which ids to pass, what to do with the result, and the security rule that governs the whole interaction. No gaps remain.

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% and the providers param already carries an example, but the description adds real meaning by specifying the ids must come from check_setup's missingProviders plus cloudflare when absent. workflowId is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 concrete verb and artifact: create one short link the user opens to connect named services, one button per service. This is clearly separable from list_connections, verify_connection, and check_setup by what it 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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the provider ids come from (check_setup's missingProviders, plus cloudflare if not connected) and prescribes the follow-up loop: poll check_setup with the returned sessionId and continue once connectionRequest.complete is true. It also names what not to do: never ask the user to paste a secret and never attempt the connection yourself.

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