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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already establish safety. The description adds essential behavioral context: the link requires user action in their own browser, it does not expire, it returns existing connections and connectUrl, and it adds another connection if one exists. This goes beyond the structured fields and is highly useful.

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 concise yet complete, covering purpose, usage steps, caveats, and follow-up in a well-structured paragraph. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loads the core function.

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 covers the return values (existing connections and connectUrl), the user interaction flow, the non-expiring link, and the verification step. An agent has all necessary information to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 single parameter 'platform' is fully described in the schema with an enum (youtube/tiktok) and a clear description. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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's purpose: generates a link for a user to connect a YouTube or TikTok account to their Treza account, enabling pipeline posting. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the connection link, and later mentions list_connected_channels for verification.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: give the link to the person, tell them the platform will ask permission, check list_connected_channels after they confirm. Also states when not to use it (when something is already connected and adding another is not desired). This is exemplary guidance.

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