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

With no annotations, the description should carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a link for the user to open and that the current key still works without reconfiguration, but it omits what happens after the link is opened, whether the link expires, and what side effects occur on existing accounts.

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 short and front-loaded with the main behavior: returning the connection link. The third sentence about the current key still working is useful context, though slightly tangential to invoking the tool.

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 that returns a link and has no output schema, the description explains the return value and the usage condition. It is still incomplete about the real-account connection flow, link lifecycle, and any effects on existing configuration or accounts.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'red' parameter is fully documented with an enum. The description refers only generically to 'una red', adding no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool returns a link the user must open to connect a real social account and publish for real. It distinguishes real-account connection from simulation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as wyro_publicar or wyro_cuentas.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: use it when the user wants to stop simulating. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for account listing, starting, or publishing.

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