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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it may initiate an OAuth connection as a side effect, and it explicitly scopes the returned data for privacy. There is mild tension worth noting — an OAuth handshake with an external provider versus openWorldHint=false — but this is not a clear contradiction of any stated annotation.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first establishes the trigger condition and the OAuth behavior, the second enumerates the returned and withheld fields. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 format need not be explained; the description nonetheless usefully summarizes the returned and non-returned fields as a privacy contract. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though it says nothing about what happens if the OAuth connection fails or is declined.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by confirming the tool operates purely on the authenticated user's own profile with no filtering inputs required.

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 verb (returns) and resource (the authenticated user's profile) and enumerates the exact fields returned plus a secondary behavior (starting OAuth connection). It distinguishes the tool's scope from risky siblings by listing what it deliberately never returns (phone, photos, account IDs, credentials). It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings like get_account_links, so it falls short of a 5.

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 trigger condition: 'When the user asks to access or connect UniAffitti, call this tool.' That is a concrete when-to-use rule rather than an inference. It names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when get_account_links would be preferred), so it stops short of a 5.

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