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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the link is one-time, requires the user to click and approve with Google, and the resulting refresh token is stored encrypted. It does not mention link expiry or re-issuance.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and followed by the post-approval consequence. Every clause earns its place; no 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 zero-parameter OAuth-initiation tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be described) and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It omits only peripheral details like link lifetime, required user permissions, and what happens on repeat calls.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document; per the baseline for a parameterless tool, a 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 verb ('Generates') and a precise artifact (a one-time authorization link for a Google Ads account), plus the outcome of the flow. It is clearly distinct from connect_meta_ads/connect_ga4 by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

Usage is implied: call this when a Google Ads account needs to be connected, and the two-step click/approve flow is described. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites or of alternatives such as create_google_ads_account or select_google_resource.

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