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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the credential-passthrough warning, the preference for scoped secrets over primary passwords, and the fact that connect_session_id lets the caller mark a session connected or failed. This is substantive 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the prerequisite, then the credential guidance, then the security warning. Dense but nearly every clause carries actionable information; the two inline lists add length without much 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?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, prerequisites, credential selection, and the security implication. It does not say what a successful connect returns (e.g. the resulting account record), which is the only real gap.

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%, so the per-field documentation is already carried by the schema and the baseline would be 3. The description goes one step further by ranking credential options (prefer app passwords, bot tokens, webhook URLs, API tokens over primary passwords), which is preference meaning the schema does not encode.

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 ('Connect a credential-based social account') plus the explicit scope qualifier 'directly, without a browser session', and enumerates the supported platforms. An agent can distinguish it from create_connect_session and disconnect_account without opening any schema.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Call list_platforms with view=connect_link first to discover the exact credential fields'), names the alternative tool for OAuth platforms (create_connect_session), and explains which credential type to prefer per platform. Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are covered.

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