Connect popularity source

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: secrets are stored in the OS keychain and never returned, which tells the agent credential handling is safe to pass in. Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, open world), but the description does not disclose what happens on repeat calls despite idempotentHint=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?

A single dense sentence with the source list and the sequencing directive up front; little waste. The credential lists make it long, but each clause maps to a real parameter group.

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 15-parameter, no-output-schema tool, it covers source selection, credential handling and the follow-up call well. Gaps remain on the `store` parameter and on what happens if a source is already connected.

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 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already documented, but the description adds the grouping of which parameters belong to which source and reinforces preferring paths over inline PEM. It does not cover the `store` enum parameter at all.

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 ("Connect a source of REAL keyword popularity") and enumerates the three supported source types with their credential sets. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like disconnect_popularity and fetch_popularity.

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 precondition (choose apple_ads, google_ads_planner or imported), a preference ("Prefer file paths for keys") and an explicit next step ("Then call fetch_popularity"). It does not mention when not to use it or reference disconnect_popularity / get_popularity_status as alternatives.

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