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

The description states the result is an OAuth URL, which is useful and honest. With no annotations, however, it does not disclose OAuth lifecycle details, such as whether the URL is one-time, what scopes are involved, or whether account creation only happens after the user authorizes.

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 two crisp sentences with the main point first and a compact list of supported values second. There is no filler and the structure makes the core behavior immediately clear.

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?

This is a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, and the description provides the necessary input semantics and return outcome. Additional OAuth flow detail would be nice, but the agent has enough to correctly invoke the tool and understand the result.

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 schema provides no description for the required account_type, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description's supported-types list is the only documentation for the parameter. It adds real value, though it does not explain abbreviations like 'gmb' or confirm expected casing.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the OAuth URL to connect a new social media account.' It also names the supported account types, which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_accounts and reconnect_account.

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 'new social media account' phrasing gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the supported-types list tells the agent what inputs are valid. It does not explicitly mention the alternative for existing accounts, so it stops short of full guidance.

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