get_connection_guide

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses what the content actually contains (where the user clicks, Meta prerequisites, realistic timeframes) and concrete outcomes like Instagram same-day vs WhatsApp 2-6 weeks.

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 sentences, no filler. The valuable routing guidance ('call this before advising...') and the concrete timeframe contrast are front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter read-only guide with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the returned content covers and when it matters. No return-format explanation is needed, and nothing an agent requires to call it is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing the guide as covering all channels generically.

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 (get) plus resource (connection guide) and enumerates the covered channels (Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, Telegram, Shopify, calendars). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_channels, which only lists channels rather than explaining setup.

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 says 'Call this before advising anyone which channel to set up', giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name a competing sibling tool to use instead, so it falls just short of the 5-level when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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