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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Recording the connection moves no audio; the scan happens afterwards.' This clarifies that the tool only records the connection and does not perform an upload or migration, significantly enhancing transparency.

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 is concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, followed by clear setup instructions and a brief safety note. Every sentence earns its place, and the three-sentence structure is easy to parse.

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 two-step tool with no output schema, the description covers the complete interaction model: what the tool does, how to initiate setup, what information to expect (the address to share the folder with), and the follow-up call with the folder argument. It also addresses the non-destructive nature and subsequent scan behavior, making it fully self-contained.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the folder parameter's 'Omit to get setup instructions' behavior. The description reinforces this by explaining the two-step calling pattern and gives a concrete example (folder=<the Drive URL>), but it doesn't add substantial new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool connects a Google Drive folder of recordings for automatic episode matching, using a specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('Google Drive folder'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly framing this as the alternative to uploading files one by one, unambiguously differentiating it from publisher_upload_audio.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the alternative to uploading a back catalogue file by file. It also gives step-by-step usage instructions, including calling with no folder argument first for setup instructions and then calling again with the Drive URL, making the workflow unmistakable.

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