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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is scope and access semantics: paths must come verbatim from the Connect REST reference and DevOps resources follow the connection's DevOps access category rather than metadata access. It does not itself restate the destructive/mutating risk or rate-limit behavior, but that is covered by annotations and the method param.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then scope, then exclusions; no filler sentences. It is dense and long-ish, but every sentence carries routing or constraint information an agent needs for a generic passthrough API tool.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what surface is reachable, what isn't, path sourcing rules, and sibling alternatives. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 adds real meaning beyond the schema by warning that paths must be taken from Salesforce's reference and not guessed, and that an empty path returns the Connect directory for the context user. It also implicitly constrains what belongs in path versus queryParams.

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 ('Call any Salesforce Connect REST API resource under /services/data/vXX.X/connect/') and enumerates the resource families covered (Core, CMS, Experience Cloud, Files, Personalization, Commerce, DevOps). It also explicitly disambiguates from siblings (cms_content, cms_delivery, soql_query, sobject_dml, tooling_api_*, metadata_*), so an agent can pick it 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (Connect REST resources), when-not-to-use (Chatter under /chatter/ is not reachable; use soql_query/sobject_dml/tooling_api_*/metadata_* for other APIs), and preference routing ('prefer cms_content and cms_delivery when they cover the operation'). The empty-path behavior for discovery is also spelled out.

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