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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: after a connection-start flow, the agent should pass the returned onboardingAttemptId and onboardingFlow so Dynamoi ops can correlate the browser step. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with the main use case front-loaded and no filler. The polling instruction and exclusions each earn their place.

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 an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers the main selection and invocation concerns, including the non-obvious polling flow. The missing explanation of artistId and format keeps it slightly incomplete.

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%, so the description bears the burden for explaining parameters. It adds real meaning for onboardingAttemptId and onboardingFlow, but never explains the required artistId or the format enum, leaving two of four parameters under-specified.

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 reports whether Spotify, Meta, or YouTube are connected and which setup steps block launches. This sharply differentiates it from analytics, smart-link, campaign, and account-overview siblings.

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 'Use this when...' context, polling guidance with onboarding IDs, and clear exclusions for billing and generic marketing questions. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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