Connect a Pexafy account

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that the connection request is delivered as an error result ('the error is how that request is delivered, not a failure'), that behavior is host-dependent (prompt vs. text-only), that repeat calls return the same request, and that an already-attached account makes it a no-op. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent could otherwise misread as a failure.

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 purpose and usage, then layers behavioral caveats in three compact paragraphs. Some restatement occurs (idempotency and the already-attached no-op are covered twice), but every sentence carries operational information and nothing is padding.

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 documented, yet the description still explains the error-result contract that is the crux of using this tool correctly. With one optional parameter, complete annotations, and host-variation disclosed, an agent has everything needed to invoke it.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the `check_only` semantics ('reads the state without opening a prompt') but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema text.

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 ('Asks the host to offer its own flow for connecting a Pexafy account') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by declaring 'It does not search, and searching does not require calling it.' An agent can tell what this does and does not do without inspecting any schema.

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 trigger conditions ('when the person asks to connect, link or sign in... or wants more searches than the daily allowance') and an explicit non-use case ('searching does not require calling it'). It also carves out the `check_only` alternative for state reads versus opening a prompt.

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