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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: 15-minute expiry, session/identity constraint ('works only signed in as this account'), the write-scope requirement, and the post-click sequence (browser OAuth, then the account appears in connections_list). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and none are in the annotations.

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 dense sentences, all front-loaded: what the URL is, the sibling relationship, then the lifetime/auth/post-click facts. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no explanation. The description covers lifetime, auth precondition, permission scope, and the follow-on flow, which is everything needed to call a single-parameter URL-minting tool correctly.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already explains it is 'a platform id from platforms_list with oauth: true.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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+resource purpose: producing 'the one URL the human clicks to connect a social account on a platform.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from connections_list by noting that tool already carries one link per missing platform, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use: you call this to obtain the clickable connect URL for a human, and it works 'only signed in as this account.' The connections_list reference clarifies the relationship. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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