Finish connecting

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and open-world, so the agent knows it is a state-changing external call. The description adds the meaningful prerequisite that browser approval must already have happened, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., approval not granted, expired request) or what credential/session state it establishes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The condition and the action are both in the first clause, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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 zero-param auth-completion step this covers the essential trigger, but with no output schema and no annotation detail on authentication semantics, it leaves open what the call returns, whether it is idempotent, and how failures surface. A little more on the connect-then-finish sequence would close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool 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 verb ("Complete") and resource ("pending Ads Optimiser sign-in"), and the phrase "pending ... after the user has approved it in the browser" cleanly separates it from the sibling adsoptimiser_connect, which presumably starts the flow. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a clear usage condition: call it once a sign-in is pending and the user has approved in the browser. The prerequisite dependency on the earlier connect step is implied by "pending" but never spelled out, and there is no guidance on what to do if no sign-in is pending.

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