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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation is a two-step flow that returns a link, nothing is connected until the user approves, and no password/key is passed — meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the important approval caveat and a follow-up hint. Every clause earns its place, though it is quite terse.

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-value explanation isn't required, and the description still clarifies the link/approval semantics. For a single-param connect tool the agent has enough to invoke it correctly, with only minor guidance gaps around prerequisites.

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 'business' param is fully documented in the schema. The description implies the target is 'a page' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Starts connecting Zoom to a page'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling connect_google/connect_stripe/connect_telegram tools by naming the target service and the page it binds to.

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?

Provides a post-action pointer ('Check list_connectors afterwards') and an approval-flow context, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites for invoking it relative to 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.