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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: authorization is out-of-band on the platform, the call returns immediately with a link, the caller must wait, and success is confirmed later via list_accounts. That async, non-completing behavior is the biggest trap for an agent and is stated clearly. It stops short of noting link expiry or what a repeated call does, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the follow-up flow, then the usage trigger. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (a link), the required human step, and how to confirm success. Only edge details like link lifetime or repeat-call behavior are 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 100% and the platform parameter already enumerates valid values in the schema. The description adds no meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 outcome with a clear verb and resource: it produces a link the user opens to connect a social account. The purpose is unmistakable, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling connect_instagram, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 explicit triggers — 'when an account they want is missing, or when one is marked as needing a reconnect' — and points to list_accounts as the verification surface. No when-not guidance or sibling comparison (e.g. versus connect_instagram) is provided, keeping it short of a 5.

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