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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does the work of explaining side effects. It discloses that on success Pollen finishes the handshake and publishes the catalog automatically, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe failure modes, but the key side effect is covered.

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. It front-loads the precondition and action, then immediately specifies the parameter source and success behavior. Every sentence 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 simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the necessary context: when to call it, where the parameter comes from, and what happens on success. No critical operational detail is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that accountId must be one of the candidates returned by get_google_connect_status, which is not fully captured in the schema's standalone description. This helps the agent resolve the parameter in the correct 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 states a specific action (resume), the resource (Google connect paused on the account picker), and the trigger condition (status selecting_account). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing the paused state and the candidate source from get_google_connect_status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: when a Google connect is paused on the account picker with status selecting_account. It also tells the agent exactly where to obtain the required input (candidates returned by get_google_connect_status), effectively guiding the agent away from guessing or using unrelated connection tools.

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