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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses that the call initiates a one-tap flow requiring a human to open a URL, and that state must be polled afterward, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the URL expires, or whether repeated calls create duplicate pending connects.

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 immediately followed by the return value and the required next step. 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?

For an async-connect tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return field (connect_url) and the follow-up call, which is what an agent needs to drive the flow. It falls short only on failure modes and pending-connect handling.

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 coverage is only 25% across 4 parameters. The description implies network choice but never explains label, brand_id, or the nested options object, which only the schema hints at via a pointer to list_networks. Two of the four parameters get no meaning from either source.

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 and resource: start a connect flow for a brand on an OAuth or app-password network. It is clearly distinguishable from get_connect_status and disconnect_channel, though it never names those siblings explicitly as alternatives.

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 a concrete workflow: hand connect_url to the account owner to open once, then poll get_connect_status. That is a clear when-and-what-next, but there is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g. an existing channel, a pending connect).

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