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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds useful behavioral context: it can advance the flow to the catalog picker or go straight to active, and it resumes a paused state. It doesn't mention side effects like whether the previous selection is overwritten, but the state transition info is valuable and goes beyond the 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, where the input comes from, and what the possible outcomes are. No fluff, no repetition of the title or schema. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the paused state, the input source, and the possible next states. It could mention what happens if the businessId is invalid or what the response looks like, but given the simplicity of the tool and the annotations, the description is largely complete.

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% and the single parameter businessId is already described as 'Business portfolio ID from the candidates list'. The description reinforces this by saying to pass the businessId of a candidate from get_meta_connect_status, which adds provenance context beyond the schema. With only one parameter and full schema coverage, the description adds meaningful but not extensive extra value.

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 specific resource ('a Meta connect paused on the business picker'), and the exact status context ('selecting_business'). It also names the required input (businessId) and the possible next states, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pick_meta_catalog and pick_google_account.

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 when to use this tool: when a Meta connect is paused on the business picker (status selecting_business). It also tells the agent to pass a businessId from get_meta_connect_status, which is a clear prerequisite and source of the parameter. This is strong guidance for an agent deciding between this and sibling tools.

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