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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only, no side effects,' which aligns perfectly with the annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). It also explains that the tool returns URLs that land the member signed-in and open actions, making the behavior transparent. There is no contradiction or hidden side effect.

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 concise, consisting of only two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose ('deep-link contract') and immediately provides examples and usage. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it (in chat), and its relationship to connections_pulse. It also explicitly states its read-only nature, which addresses safety context. No gaps are apparent.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool provides deep links for specific actions like importing contacts, posting deals, and browsing deals. It identifies the resource ('URLs') and the intended use case in chat. However, the term 'deep-link contract' is somewhat abstract and does not explicitly specify the output format (e.g., a list of links), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The description gives a concrete usage guideline: 'Hand one to the member in chat instead of describing the steps.' It also notes that connections_pulse's next_actions already carry these links, suggesting a possible alternative source. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like connections_accounts or connections_execute, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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