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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, but the description adds what they cannot: that the tool is a human-in-the-loop handoff, that the response contains a connection_url per app in data[], and that no state change occurs until the user authenticates. This resolves the apparent tension between 'make a link' and readOnlyHint by clarifying the tool only generates a URL.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose, then the flow, then the caveat — a sensible order with no filler. It loses a point for the slightly run-on phrasing 'connects an app account (Google, Slack, an API key…) to viaSocket' and for inlining a raw JSON body mid-sentence, which interrupts readability.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: trigger, request body, response shape (data[] with connection_url), the required human step, and the follow-up call to list_connections for the auth_id. Nothing material is missing.

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 100% and the single service_ids parameter is already documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing the exact request body shape and explaining that supplying multiple service_ids yields a corresponding connection_url per app in data[], which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Make a sign-in link') and scopes it to connecting an app account to viaSocket, with concrete examples (Google, Slack, an API key). The final sentence explicitly separates it from the connected state, so an agent won't confuse it with list_connections or connection-creation tools.

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 a complete procedural sequence: hand the user the link, wait for confirmation of sign-in, then call list_connections again to retrieve the auth_id. It also sets the exclusion condition clearly — 'It only makes the link; nothing is connected until the user signs in' — which prevents the agent from assuming success prematurely.

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