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

The description goes beyond the basic annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) by disclosing session binding ('bound to their session'), link expiry (15 minutes), the refusal behavior for shut connectors, and the 'Free, spends nothing' cost aspect. It does not mention potential side effects like creating a pending connection record, but still adds substantial context.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and packs essential information (returns, polling, refusal, cost) into a dense but readable block. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence serves a practical need for the agent.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it lists exact return fields, provides the next-step action (poll_connection), specifies the timeout, covers an edge case (connector shut), and clarifies cost. This leaves little ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema already documents the provider parameter with 100% coverage, including valid values (ga4, gsc, etc.) and reference to list_connections. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance semantics.

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: 'Connect a growth data source or distribution channel' with a specific verb (connect) and resource (data source/channel). It distinguishes from siblings like poll_connection (which checks status) and list_connections (which lists available connectors) by detailing the one-time link flow and founder approval.

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 provides clear workflow guidance: 'Then poll_connection until it reports connected.' It also warns about a failure condition (when a connector is shut). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like disconnect_connection for removal, so it misses a bit on exclusions.

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