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

Although annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the status lifecycle, what accounts and connections contain, and explicitly states that tokens and the consent URL are not returned.

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?

The description front-loads the main purpose, then explains returned fields and the pending-status routing condition. Every sentence carries operational meaning, and the final exclusion about tokens and consent URL is a useful boundary statement.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by explaining the status values, account and connection contents, the pending decision state, and what is not returned. It is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no input parameters to document beyond the baseline. The description does mention connectionId, accountId, and feedId, but only in the context of the alternative select_merchant_account tool, not as parameters of this tool.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Read this workspace's Merchant Center link') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_merchant_link and select_merchant_account. It also defines the status values and returned collections, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 gives an explicit conditional routing rule: when status is pending and accounts has more than one entry, the agent should call select_merchant_account with connectionId, accountId, and feedId. This directly names the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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