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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but are not fully self-explanatory. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool returns an authUrl that requires human interaction, it may pause on a picker, and the catalog is automatically published once active. However, it doesn't detail error cases or how the 'restart' affects existing connections, but the added context is substantial beyond 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 a single, focused paragraph that leads with the core action, then adds essential workflow details in a logical order. Every sentence carries weight: it explains the human step, the status check, the potential picker pause, and the automatic publishing. No filler or redundancy.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to know: prompt for human action, next steps, possible branching, and outcomes. It is complete for the complexity of the tool and complements the annotations.

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, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description properly states that no parameters are needed and instead explains the return value (authUrl) and the required human step. Since the schema is empty, the description fully compensates for the lack of parameter details, earning a strong score.

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 a specific action ('Start or restart connecting'), identifies the resource (Meta Business catalog) and the platform (Pollen), and distinguishes itself from siblings like connect_google and get_meta_connect_status. It also covers the 'restart' aspect, which is not evident from the name alone.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to start or restart the connection) and what to do next (call get_meta_connect_status). It also routes to alternative tools for picker selection (pick_meta_business / pick_meta_catalog), ensuring the agent knows the full workflow and how to handle the flow.

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