connect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavior beyond that: key-issuing apps surface a URL and a terminal storage command, and the Google flow 'starts the browser sign-in and returns at once' (asynchronous, user completes approval out-of-band, next call succeeds). It does not state auth/permission prerequisites or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the two behavioral branches, the sibling pointer, and the hard constraint. Dense but every sentence carries information; slightly compressed phrasing ('says where to get one') costs a little clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns — and it does, explaining that Google 'returns at once' and that the key flow surfaces a URL plus a terminal command. For a single-param, enum-constrained connection tool this is complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an enum, the baseline is 3, but the description adds per-value meaning: key-issuing apps behave one way, Google another. That differentiates the enum values beyond the schema's generic 'The app to connect.'

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 ('connect') and resource ('one app this server uses') and immediately differentiates itself from the read-only sibling `connection_status`. An agent can tell what this does versus the dozens of list/get siblings without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'To see which apps are connected, call connection_status,' and distinguishes the key-issuing-app flow from the Google OAuth flow. The 'Never ask the user for a key in the chat' rule gives a concrete interaction constraint, so when and how to use it is unambiguous.

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