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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: link is short, single-use, expires in 15 minutes, and polling reuses the same unexpired link (consistent with idempotentHint=true). It also discloses plan requirements per platform and the PLATFORM_PENDING_APPROVAL response, plus the fact that the tool is free — none of which the annotations convey. No contradiction: minting a link is consistent with readOnlyHint=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?

Front-loads the core question and answer shapes, and nearly every clause carries new information (expiry, polling, plan gating, error code). The flow is somewhat stream-of-consciousness with trailing fragments like 'Free.', but there is little 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what is returned in each state, how to deliver the link, the polling cadence, link reuse and expiry, plan prerequisites, and a named failure state. An agent can complete the entire connect flow from this text alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, mapping four of the five enum values (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Threads) to a paid-plan requirement, which implies TikTok is free. That is real semantic value beyond the bare enum list, though it never explains the platform argument itself or the YOUTUBE-vs-TIKTOK distinction explicitly.

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?

Opens with a direct question form ('Is this platform connected?') and then states both outcomes precisely: returns the account when connected, returns a connectUrl when not. A specific resource (platform connection status) and its two result shapes are unambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like autoshort_list_social_accounts.

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 concrete operational guidance: hand the link to the user, poll every 10 seconds (pollAfterSeconds), keep going until connected is true, and note that consent is the only human step and happens once per platform. It also flags plan gating and the PLATFORM_PENDING_APPROVAL outcome. It never names an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not-to-call case, so it stops short of 5.

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