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

Annotations already flag the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description earns credit for adding the OAuth mechanics, the fact that the token is stored automatically with 'no paste', and the sequencing constraint of polling code_status. It does not explain why destructiveHint is set (e.g. what a reconnect does to an existing token), which is the only real gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary no-argument flow before the fallback, and no filler. The parenthetical fallback is slightly dense but keeps the main path readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned `auth_url` field the agent must present, names the prerequisite and the verification step, and covers both connection paths. Complete enough for a one-optional-param connector; only the return shape beyond auth_url is unstated.

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 sole parameter is optional, so the schema already documents `token`. The description adds marginal value by framing it as an 'advanced fallback ... without the browser flow', but offers no format or scope details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Connect the user's GitHub account') and scopes it to 'code sites', which separates it from the many sibling connectors (connect_vercel, connect_ga, connect_framer, connect_wordpress). An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 is explicit about the default path (call with NO arguments), the exact user flow (click link, approve on GitHub, token auto-captured), the prerequisite (site registered via create_site), and the follow-up (poll code_status). It even names the advanced alternative (PAT via `token`) and when to use it.

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