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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether tokens are invalidated or a user must authorize), permissions required, or the nature of the returned URL. It only states the action without revealing any behavioral implications.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the tool's purpose and then lists supported types. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and supported types. It is adequate but lacks details on how the returned URL is used (e.g., whether it requires user interaction) and does not explicitly differentiate the reconnect flow from the initial connection flow.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds value by listing all valid account types for the account_type parameter, which is directly relevant. However, it provides no explanation of account_id, leaving that parameter undefined. Partial compensation for one of two parameters.

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 action (get OAuth URL) and resource (reconnect existing social media account). The term 'reconnect' differentiates it from the likely sibling get_account_connect_url, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 a specific use case ('e.g. after token expiry') which gives clear context, but it does not directly contrast with siblings like get_account_connect_url or state when *not* to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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