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

Annotations only declare the safe non-destructive profile; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool returns a code consumed by a human outside the API, the code expires in 30 minutes, and the linking happens through a specific bot menu path. That expiry and human-in-the-loop requirement are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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, front-loaded with the return value and then the follow-on workflow. The embedded UI path '(@ProxyCove_bot → "Link website account")' is slightly noisy but is doing real work in telling the human where to paste the code.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return value and it does so (a short code), plus its validity window. Combined with the zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and explain the result to the user.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on parameter syntax.

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+resource (linking the website account to the Telegram bot) and precisely what the tool returns: a short code the human relays to @ProxyCove_bot. It is unmistakably distinct in form from the getter/purchase siblings, though it never contrasts itself with the similarly recovery-flavored attach_recovery, which is the one sibling an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is offered as a 'second way to keep access if the API key is lost,' and the follow-on flow (manage account, issue new API keys from the bot) is spelled out. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so it stops 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.