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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=falseaine, so the description's disclosure that it 'Creates their Merchant Center account' adds specific side-effect context beyond the annotation. The precondition phrasing also conveys the stateful nature of the tool. However, it doesn't mention failure modes or what happens if called in an invalid state, which is a minor 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The critical state (tos_required) is front-loaded, the usage condition is explicit, and the side effect is stated. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully sufficient: it states the prerequisite, the triggering state, the source of the termsUrl, and the outcome. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (empty object), so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate; no additional param information is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Resume'), a precise resource ('greenfield Google connect paused on Terms-of-Service acceptance'), and the concrete outcome ('Creates their Merchant Center account and finishes the handshake'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect_google and get_google_connect_status by naming the exact state (tos_required) it acts on.

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 explicitly says 'Only call this after the merchant has confirmed they accept the Google Merchant Center ToS', and references the sibling get_google_connect_status as the source of the termsUrl. This is a clear when-to-use condition that prevents misuse, effectively also stating when not to call it.

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