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

With readOnlyHint=false and no other strong behavioral annotations, the description adds meaningful details: it sends an email to the user, generates a confirmation link and code, and initiates an asynchronous flow that requires a follow-up call to connect_verify. It does not contradict the annotations spoiled within the structured data, and it surfaces the important non-obvious trait that this step alone does not complete authentication.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: it states the action, names the required inputs and behavior, gives the immediate next step, and removes a possible concern ('No card needed'). The most important information is front-loaded, and there is 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?

The description explains the flow and the next step, but it never explicitly says that connect_start returns the request_id needed for connect_verify. Because there is no output schema, that return value is a critical missing piece for an agent that must invoke the follow-up call with the correct argument. A short addition such as 'Returns a request_id to pass to connect_verify' would make it complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: email is defined as the user's work email, and language is described as the conversation's language with examples ('lt', 'en'…). It does not enumerate all language codes or explain the null default, but the schema already covers the default, so the description provides meaningful extra guidance.

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 opens with 'Begin authentication' and then names the concrete action: send the user's work email and conversation language, after which Victano emails a confirm link and code. This clearly identifies a specific verb, resource, and scope, and it distinguishes connect_start from its sibling connect_verify by framing it as the first step in a two-step flow.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool ('Begin authentication') and even tells the agent exactly what to do next ('Then call connect_verify(request_id) at once: it waits for the click'). It also notes 'No card needed,' ruling out a possible prerequisite. It does not spell out when not to use connect_start or compare it with other siblings, but the flow guidance is strong.

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