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

With annotations only flagging safety hints, the description carries rich behavioral detail: the link is one-time, session-bound, lasts 15 minutes, must be handed to the founder, returns specific fields, and refuses before minting anything if the connector is shut. This is far more than the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key constraint (you never complete consent), then return values, expiry, refusal behavior and cost in dense but non-redundant sentences. Every sentence adds operative 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and their meaning, the link lifetime, and the failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 single provider parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including allowed values, and the description adds nothing further about it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Connect a growth data source or distribution channel') and immediately describes the mechanism (mint a one-time link the founder approves). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like poll_connection, disconnect_connection, and list_connections.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context and a hard exclusion: 'You never complete the consent yourself; it is bound to their session,' plus the refusal case when a connector is shut. It implies the follow-up via poll_token/poll_after_seconds but never names poll_connection as the next step, so routing is left slightly implicit.

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