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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that it operates against live third-party apps (Gmail, Slack, Sheets), which reinforces the open-world nature, but says nothing about rate limits, auth scope requirements, or why an include_pii flag exists.

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 ~90-character sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, no filler. The parenthetical app list is the only expendable element, and the brevity is achieved by under-specification rather than trimming 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 9-parameter tool with a nested object, zero schema coverage and no output schema, this one sentence cannot tell an agent how to construct a valid call or what comes back. The return shape (options list? resolved value?) is entirely undefined.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters (including a nested free-form 'props' object), so the description carries the burden. It alludes to 'prop'/'props' and to 'connection', but leaves component, version, query, limit, and include_pii completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 specific verbs (List, describe, resolve) and a specific resource (prop options for actions on a connected app), with concrete app examples (Gmail, Slack, Sheets). An agent can tell it apart from connections_action_run and connections_list, though the jargon 'prop options' / 'resolve' is never defined, leaving the exact object of the operation fuzzy.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The obvious relationship — this is discovery, connections_action_run is execution — is never stated, nor are prerequisites such as needing a connection id from connections_list.

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