fxa_connect_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the result of pairing ('the trader can type or speak to you and you answer in their chart panel') and the code source, but does not mention permissions, failure modes, or connection lifecycle, leaving gaps.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and source, second explains consequence and trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple connection tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call, and the resulting state. It lacks explicit return/error info but is reasonably complete for the scenario.

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 baseline is 3. The description's example reinforces the 'code' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and agentName is left as-is.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Pair') and resource ('trader's open FXAbsolute chart'), and includes an example call. It clearly states the action and trigger, making it distinct from sibling tools like fxa_disconnect_chart.

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 states when to call: 'Call this when the user gives you a pairing code' with a concrete example. It provides clear usage context but does not discuss exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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