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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: the link is bound to the founder's session, the assistant never completes consent, the link expires in 15 minutes, refusal happens before minting, and the operation is free. This is rich behavioral transparency that helps the agent set expectations.

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 core purpose and then adds necessary details (returned fields, expiration, polling step, refusal condition) in a compact, well-organized way. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return values, the timeout, the follow-up polling step, and the failure condition, so the agent knows exactly what to expect and what to do next.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'provider' parameter, including which provider IDs to use (ga4, gsc, gbp, linkedin, reddit) and that they come from list_connections. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Connect') and resource ('a growth data source or distribution channel'), and explains the unique mechanism (minting a one-time link for the founder to approve). It distinguishes itself from siblings like poll_connection and disconnect_connection by describing the consent flow.

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 explicit usage context: it says to hand the url to the founder, then poll_connection until connected. It also mentions the refusal case for shut connectors. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use list_connections to find provider IDs' but references it indirectly through provider ids, and the flow is clear enough.

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