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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value with the consent-flow disclosure and the credential caution ('never request passwords or bot tokens'). It also converts idempotentHint into an action ('Reuse the idempotency key'). It does not cover auth prerequisites beyond 'authorized brand' or rate limits.

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 action before drilling into platform branches, security, and idempotency. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the name.

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 multi-platform OAuth-style connection tool with an output schema present (so return values need not be described), the description covers the initiation, platform-specific branches, consent, and credential safety. Minor gaps remain around post-consent completion/polling and brand authorization requirements.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does semantically map three params (server for Mastodon, platform as 'one social platform', idempotencyKey for reuse). However, it says nothing about brandId beyond 'authorized brand', nor about platform enum values or key format, leaving genuine gaps at 0% 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 specific verb and resource ('Start connecting one social platform to an authorized brand'), so an agent knows this initiates a channel-connection flow rather than reporting on one. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_channel_connection or select_channel_accounts, so it falls short of a 5 on distinction.

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?

Provides concrete invocation context via per-platform branches ('For Mastodon, provide the user's server'; Telegram's bot selection + confirm step), which clearly signals when and how this flow applies. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over list_connected_accounts/get_channel_connection or the ordering relative to select_channel_accounts.

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