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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the link is single-use and must be completed by a human, and the call yields connect_url rather than completing a connection.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and its return value front-loaded and the alternative routing clause placed second.

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 details need no prose, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The main residual gap is the unexplained connection_context parameter, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 supply the accepted channel values (meta|google_ads|tiktok) and the mode value (add_connection), which the schema lacks as enums, but connection_context is left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Create a single-use browser authorization link'), scopes it to explicit channel values and a mode, and names the return value connect_url. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like setup_begin_channel_connect and connections_check_intent.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer setup_begin_channel_connect when you need its explicit connect_id/check workflow.' It gives a clear selection criterion against the most likely alternative but does not state when this tool is preferred over connections_check_intent or explain prerequisites.

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