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

Annotations provide only that this is not read-only and not destructive, leaving the description to explain side effects and data handling. The description adds behavioral value by noting the code is short-lived, that connection credentials are not returned, and that the returned reference is reusable and opaque. It does not mention that the code is single-use, but the transparency provided is solid.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately state the most important behavioral caveat ('Connection credentials are not returned'). Every sentence adds necessary information with 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 no output schema, the description covers what is confirmed, what is returned, and what is not returned. It is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could explicitly mention that the code is consumed or single-use.

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 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds conceptual context about the connection reference being reusable and credential-free, but the schema already carries most of the parameter-level meaning.

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 verb ('confirms'), a precise resource ('short-lived company-connection code'), and the expected result ('connected companies plus a reusable opaque connection reference'). It clearly differentiates this from brc_start_company_connection by describing the confirmation step rather than the initiation step.

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 phrase 'short-lived' and the schema's note that the code comes from the Red connection page success message make the invocation context clear. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the confirmation-vs-start distinction is strongly implied and adequate for an agent.

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