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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false and the description is consistent with them. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the return is a status/channel or not_found_or_expired, the link should be reused while valid, and polling is discouraged. It does not, however, describe expiry timing or failure modes.

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 tightly packed clauses with the action and handle formats front-loaded, then the return values, then the routing hint. Every phrase carries usable information; no filler.

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 detailed, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. What is missing is any explanation of the second parameter, connection_context, but otherwise an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden: it explains that intent_id accepts ci_*, Meta connect_id, or fbconn_live_* handle formats, which is meaningful beyond the bare 'string' type. However connection_context (pattern ^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (Check) plus the exact resource (one existing authorization handle) and constrains scope to a single handle rather than a batch. It also names the sibling it is not (setup_check_channel_connect), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicit timing ('after the user finishes'), an explicit exclusion ('do not start automatic polling'), guidance to reuse the link while valid, and a named alternative for setup connect_ids. Nothing is left to inference.

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