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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint that only user-selected candidates are connected, which is useful context, but it says nothing about side effects, error conditions, or how the idempotencyKey governs retries.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted elsewhere rather than a deliberate trade-off.

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 four-parameter write tool with 0% schema description coverage and no enums, a single sentence is inadequate. The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves the required inputs (especially flowId and idempotencyKey) and the relationship to sibling channel tools unexplained.

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 burden for four required parameters. It only loosely gestures at candidateIds ('exact provider account candidates'); brandId, flowId, and idempotencyKey are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning from names and formats alone.

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 action ('Connect') and target ('provider account candidates selected by the user in the connection card'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'connect_channel', and the relationship between 'select' in the name and 'connect' in the description is left for the agent to reconcile.

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?

It implies the usage context ('candidates selected by the user in the connection card'), giving the agent a sense of when this fires in a connection flow. But it never states when to prefer this over connect_channel or list_connected_accounts, so the routing decision remains inferred.

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