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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that this is a guide with a link and steps rather than an automated disconnect, which is useful context, but it does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 description is a single concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main content type, though it is a fragment rather than a structured sentence.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the input parameter remains undocumented in both the description and schema, which leaves a notable gap for an agent that might need to pass connection_context.

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?

The schema has a single optional parameter, connection_context, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The description therefore fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning and format 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?

The description says it provides a Facebook link and steps for removing AdsAgent's access, which conveys the resource and intent, but it lacks an explicit action verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling connections_* tools such as connections_list or connections_create_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?

The phrase 'for the user to remove AdsAgent's access' implies the use case, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or guidance on when not to use this tool versus other disconnect-related or connection-listing tools.

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