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

The description discloses that the tool completes the connection and returns an API key the platform must save, which is useful behavior beyond readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. It doesn't detail side effects or failure behavior, but for a simple connect step the stated workflow is sufficient.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the interaction requirement. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema fields.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, and the schema plus output schema cover the technical details. The description fills in the human-process context and the follow-up action (saving the returned API key), making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds meaning to the key parameter—it is a short authentication key received by email after signup—and reinforces that it must come from the user, not be guessed.

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 names a specific action and object: 'Complete the CortexPlus connection' with the authentication key. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like signup, fetch, or remember, and the 'after signup' context locates its place in the 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?

It tells the agent exactly when to call it—after signup when the user has the emailed key—and prescribes the interaction: ask the user to paste the key, then call. It also adds a firm exclusion ('never guess or invent the key'), though it doesn't name alternative tools for other cases.

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