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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses crucial behavioral context: the URL only starts the connection process, nothing is connected by calling the tool, and the agent must never claim a connection was made because only the user can grant it in their browser. This is valuable and accurate.

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 tight sentences cover purpose, usage context, and a behavioral caveat without redundancy. The content is front-loaded and each sentence adds necessary guidance.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, and the critical limitation about not claiming a connection. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'key' parameter, so the description need not repeat schema details. The description adds minimal semantic context by noting the URL is for one integration, but it does not meaningfully expand on the parameter beyond the schema.

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 it returns a URL that starts connecting an integration, which is a clear and specific purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the chat card by explicitly saying to show the integrations_list card instead when in chat.

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 explicitly names when to use this tool: for surfaces that cannot render a card, such as Slack, SMS, and email. It also directs the agent to use the integrations_list card in chat, providing a clear alternative and exclusion condition.

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