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

Annotations only provide minimal readOnly/destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It fully discloses side effects: an email is sent, the user must press a button and confirm, opening the page alone does nothing, no key is shown in the browser, and there are rate and expiry limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries essential operational information: user interaction, security behavior, follow-up mechanism, and limits. The core instruction is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 supplies the key return value (pollToken) and explains its purpose with check_signup. The end-to-end user flow, prerequisites, rate limit, and expiry are all present, making the tool safely callable without additional documentation.

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 both parameters are already documented, so the description adds little new parameter meaning. It reinforces the rule to ask for the email rather than invent one, but clientName is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 action: start the signup flow by emailing a connection link, and clearly frames its role relative to the only sibling, check_signup, which consumes the returned pollToken. The description is explicit about what the tool initiates and what happens next.

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 direct operational guidance: ask the user for their email, do not invent one, and explains the exact user-side steps required for success. It also mentions the rate limit and 15-minute link expiry, which are important for deciding when to call or retry.

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