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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that the call returns an authorization URL, requires a human to open it, and only creates the connection after consent. It also tells the agent to poll the connections endpoint, which is valuable non-obvious behavioral guidance.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into the critical flow details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or 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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return value, the asynchronous human step, the post-consent behavior, and how to detect the result. This is complete enough for an agent to understand the entire expected flow.

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%, so each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool starts an OAuth-based connection for native providers, which is a specific action on a specific resource type. It also distinguishes itself from generic connection tools by describing the human-in-the-loop authorization URL flow and naming example providers.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when connecting to a native provider requiring OAuth consent. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the native-provider and human-consent framing makes the intended use unambiguous.

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