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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: the link is consumed by a human in a browser, requires an AffiliateSpy session, routes through Google's consent screen, and the mailbox is linked to the project afterwards. It omits link expiry/reuse behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Dense but waste-free: the core function and its human-in-the-browser constraint come first, the reconnect variant second, and the imperative warning last. Every clause carries information.

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 two-optional-param link generator with no output schema, the description covers what the link is, who uses it, and the reconnect path. Only the lifetime/reuse behavior of the returned link is left unstated, a minor gap.

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, but the description adds genuine semantics for 'reconnect' — it means re-consenting an existing connected mailbox, with a concrete use case (granting read access) — and frames app_id implicitly as the target project.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (getting a mailbox connect link) and precisely what the artifact is: a browser link a signed-in AffiliateSpy human opens to run Gmail through Google's consent screen. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_seed_connect_link and get_checkout_link, which produce different link types.

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?

Explains the operating condition well: a human must open it in a browser, use reconnect to re-consent an already-connected mailbox (e.g., to grant read access), and explicitly warns 'Do not open it yourself.' It does not name competing tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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