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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the call returns a link rather than completing the connection, the user must open and approve it, and no password or key is ever transmitted. That async, user-mediated, credential-free profile is exactly the kind of context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true) cannot convey.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the deferred-approval semantics, and the follow-up step. The most decision-relevant fact (nothing connects until approval) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies that the return is an approval link. Combined with the follow-up pointer to list_connectors, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and set user expectations.

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?

There is a single parameter with full schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the 'business' handle with an example. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameter, which matches the baseline for high-coverage single-param tools.

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 ('Starts connecting Google Calendar to a page') and is immediately distinguishable from siblings like connect_stripe, connect_telegram and connect_zoom. It also names the completing action (approval link) rather than leaving the outcome ambiguous.

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 clear operational context — this begins a flow, nothing is connected until the user approves, and list_connectors should be checked afterwards. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative, but the resource-scoped name already separates it from the other connect_* tools.

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