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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well beyond by decoding return states (`connected:true` = already done, `configured:false` = unavailable) and disclosing the retry workflow. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs to act on the result.

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?

Extremely dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then the action, then the return-state branch, then the cost/safety note. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema present, the description correctly compensates by explaining the returned fields (`url`, `connected`, `configured`) and what to do with them. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of `url`/`connected`/`configured` concerns outputs rather than inputs, so there is no parameter semantics to add.

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+resource (connect GitHub) and precisely describes the artifact produced: a browser link the USER opens. It is unambiguously distinct from siblings like connect_stripe or deploy_link, which it even names as a fallback.

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?

Gives the triggering condition (a CONNECT_GITHUB build failure), the exact next action (hand over the url verbatim, then retry the deploy), and an alternative path (use a public repo or lavela.deploy_link) via the `configured:false` case. When, how, and alternatives are all explicit.

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