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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool returns a link rather than performing the linking itself, and projectId auto-resolves only for single-project users, which affects invocation.

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 with the usage trigger front-loaded, then the return value, then the prerequisite. No filler and nothing buried mid-sentence.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only tool with a 100% covered schema, the description covers trigger, return, and prerequisite adequately even without an output schema. Minor gaps remain around what happens when auto-resolution fails and whether the returned link is time-limited.

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 the description's parameter notes ('Requires projectId from adkit_projects', 'auto-resolves only for single-project users', platform deep-linking) largely restate what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter 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?

States a specific action (connect an ad platform), the platforms involved, and the concrete return (a sign-in link plus ad-account picker), which is far more useful than a bare name. It does not, however, explain how it differs from the similarly named sibling adkit_integrations, so the agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user wants to connect an ad platform' — an agent can act on that without guessing. It names no exclusions or alternative tools for overlapping cases, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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