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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the returned link is private, single-use, tied to this conversation's access, and expires in 10 minutes — significant security context. It also explains the agent must not share the link with third parties or complete the sign-in flow itself. The only gap is the absence of any note on error or retry behavior after expiry.

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 conditional flow is front-loaded (connected=true case first, then the link case), and every sentence carries an actionable rule rather than filler. Some sentences are long and pack multiple obligations (privacy, expiry, no credential requests), but nothing is redundant with the annotations.

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 single-parameter auth tool with an output schema and a non-read annotation profile, the description covers what an agent needs: the trigger, the two response branches, the required follow-up action after connection, the privacy and expiry rules for the link, and explicit prohibitions. Nothing essential is left to inference.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'provider' enum, so the description must carry the meaning — and it partly does by explaining that Supercines exposes public prices without an account while Cinex and Cines Unidos appear to require one. However, it does not clarify per-provider behavior for the other two values or why the provider must be chosen up front.

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 states a concrete action and resource: it initiates the authorization flow so the user can link a Cinex, Cines Unidos or Supercines account, and it spells out the two outcomes (already connected vs. not connected). It is behaviorally distinguishable from disconnect_account and get_auth_status without naming them, though there is no explicit sibling differentiation and the provider name is misspelled once as 'Cinve'.

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 gives explicit branching guidance: if connected=true, repeat the original query without asking the user anything; if connected=false, present the link. It also states exclusions and conditions — Supercines works without an account for public prices, so only connect it if the user asks — and adds hard constraints (do not open or fill the form as the agent, never request credentials in chat).

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