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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the user drives a provider login/consent flow and that social passwords must never be requested. Idempotency-key reuse partially overlaps idempotentHint but reinforces the correct call pattern.

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 action and ending with the security constraint and call discipline. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The flow (provider login/consent) and safety constraint are covered, but the parameter gaps around brandId and platform keep it from being fully complete for a 3-parameter connection 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only touches the idempotencyKey ('reuse the idempotency key') and leaves brandId and platform unexplained beyond the self-documenting enum, a notable gap for a tool with three required parameters.

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 (connect) and resource (one social platform to an authorized brand), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like select_channel_accounts or get_channel_connection, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 context that the user completes provider login and consent, which frames when the tool applies. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as select_channel_accounts or get_channel_connection, leaving routing to inference.

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