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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the interaction model: it returns a URL that must be shown to the user for browser-based installation confirmation, and the installation id is obtained later via a follow-up call. This adds useful behavioral context about the asynchronous, user-mediated nature of the operation.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose, describe the returned value, and give the next step. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the full flow: what happens, what to do with the result, and what to call next. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already tells an agent everything needed about inputs. The description reinforces the 'returned URL' outcome but does not need to explain parameter behavior. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.

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 states a clear action ('Begin connecting GitHub') and specifies the concrete deliverable: an install URL for the Globalize GitHub App. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_github_installations by framing this as the initial setup step that precedes retrieving the installation id.

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 gives a clear workflow: call this to start connecting GitHub, surface the returned URL, wait for user confirmation, then call list_github_installations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sequence is implied strongly enough for a simple 0-parameter tool.

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