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

Even though annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description goes beyond annotations by explaining that the tool starts an interactive flow requiring human intervention, and that it may pause at intermediate steps. It also clarifies that once active, the enriched catalog is published automatically, which is a behavioral consequence not captured by 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 description is concise and front-loaded, leading with the core action and immediately stating the key behavioral requirement (human must open the URL). Each subsequent sentence adds critical routing information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (interactive OAuth flow), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the human-in-the-loop requirement, follow-up steps, potential pauses, and automatic post-connection behavior. No critical information 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 schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). The description does not add parameter-level semantics because none exist, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate for the context.

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's purpose: starting or restarting the connection of the merchant's Google Merchant Center to Pollen. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the resulting authUrl and the follow-up flow, making it distinct from other connect tools like connect_meta.

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 states that the human must open the authUrl in a browser, which is a critical usage constraint. It also directs the agent to call get_google_connect_status after approval and mentions the possibility of pausing on an account picker or ToS acceptance, with clear next steps (pick_google_account or accept_google_terms). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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