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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), it discloses that existing URIs are never replaced wholesale, that duplicates succeed as a no-op returning added: false, and that the first URI on an app with no default callback becomes the default — a side effect not visible in annotations.

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 key non-destructive guarantee is front-loaded and each sentence carries information, though the trailing get_integration_guide instruction slightly lengthens an otherwise dense block.

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 compensates by describing return semantics (added: false) and the default-callback side effect, and it covers preconditions (absolute http(s)) and related tools, leaving nothing essential unclear.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by stressing that only ONE URI is registered per call and by giving a local-dev example (http://localhost:5173/...) alongside the production example.

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 names a specific verb and resource (register ONE OAuth redirect URI on the Bridge app) and explicitly states the additive scope, distinguishing it from remove_redirect_uri and list_redirect_uris without requiring 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 gives explicit triggers (wiring a new environment, fixing a 'redirect_uri mismatch' error) and routes to named alternatives: get_environment_info for the current list, remove_redirect_uri to unregister, and get_integration_guide for app-side wiring.

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