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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the link is single-use and intended for human authorization, and the result is a connect_url.

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?

The definition is two sentences, front-loads the core action and scope, and includes the sibling alternative without unnecessary padding. Every sentence contributes directly to correct selection or invocation.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential action, channel values, return value, and a key alternative. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning how the resulting intent is checked or by clarifying mode behavior, but no critical invocation information is missing.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does meaningfully document the accepted channel values (meta, google_ads, tiktok) and names mode=add_connection, though it does not explain mode semantics beyond that value.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: creating a single-use browser authorization link. It scopes the tool to concrete channel values and names the returned connect_url, while also distinguishing it from setup_begin_channel_connect by workflow.

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?

It explicitly points to setup_begin_channel_connect when an agent needs that tool's connect_id/check workflow, which gives clear alternative guidance. It does not fully address other related siblings such as connections_check_intent, so it stops short of exhaustive when/when-not guidance.

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