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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is not a pure read, but the description does not say what side effect occurs, whether repeated calls create duplicate connections, or whether auth/workspace scoping is required. It also doesn't say what the agent receives back (presumably URLs), which is the whole point of the call.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing scope and return-value information noted elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema and a tool whose purpose is to hand back install links, the description should at least say what is returned and in what form. Combined with no usage guidance and no disclosure of the non-read-only side effect, the definition leaves too much to inference for an agent to call it confidently.

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 single optional 'agent' parameter is documented as 'Optional agent id', so the schema carries the load. The description's client list (Claude, Cursor, VS Code...) hints at what agent values mean but never explicitly connects those names to the parameter, so it adds only marginal value.

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 the resource (install links) and enumerates supported clients (Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode), so the domain is clear. But the verb is 'Install links', which is ambiguous — the tool name get_connect_links suggests it returns links rather than installing anything, and the description never says it retrieves a URL or linkset. It also doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_connections or disconnect.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no mention of alternatives such as list_connections or disconnect. The agent must infer entirely from the name and the client list when this tool applies.

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