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

Goes well beyond the annotations: warns that returning the URL does not establish a connection, discloses the LinkedIn-specific extra next_step and why (account/campaign group selection after sign-in), and states the server refuses calls lacking acknowledge_data_access. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so this added detail is genuinely valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, what it returns and the LinkedIn caveat, then the connection-status caveat and the authorization precondition. Front-loaded and every sentence carries actionable information.

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, the description still explains the return values (url, state, conditional next_step) and the out-of-band completion flow. The only remaining gap—channel enum aliasing—is fully covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description still adds the consequence of omitting acknowledge_data_access ('the server refuses the call') and links it to the credential-grant semantics. It adds a little meaning beyond the schema without fully explaining channel enum aliasing (meta for Facebook/Instagram), which is left to the schema.

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 and resource: 'Create an OAuth authorization URL for the selected advertising channel.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like disconnect_channel and from the status-checking get_integrations_status, and it names the return payload (url, state).

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 explicit follow-up guidance ('check it afterwards with get_integrations_status') and a hard precondition for external callers (acknowledge_data_access=true). It does not explicitly contrast when to prefer this over disconnect_channel or other channel-connection paths, but the context is otherwise clear.

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