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

Beyond the mutation, idempotence, and non-destructive annotations, it discloses the interactive browser side effect, conditional sign-in or sign-up, and the resulting account and default-domain context. It does not explain what happens when a client is already connected or when browser authentication is cancelled or fails.

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?

Two sentences front-load the connection and authentication behavior, then cover the returned context and install-linking consent. They are fairly dense, and the second substantially duplicates schema guidance, but there is no filler.

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-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the important missing operational context: browser interaction, conditional account creation, and how the reported domain affects other tools. An agent has enough information to invoke the connection flow and handle optional install linking correctly.

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 schema already documents the consent gates for installId and linkInstall, including that installId can be omitted and that false removes an earlier link. The description restates the true/false consent choice but adds little parameter meaning beyond that structured guidance, so the baseline score applies.

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 specific verb and resource, "Connects this client to a CookiePal account," immediately establish the operation. The browser-authentication flow and reported user, organisation, and default-domain context distinguish it from the status-oriented whoami sibling and the domain, banner, and scan tools.

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 conditional sign-in flow and explicit consent conditions for install linking clarify how the tool is used, but tool-selection guidance remains implied. It does not say when connection is required before other tools or that whoami is preferable when the user only wants to inspect the current connection.

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