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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that this makes a live call under the user's credential, can create/change/send/delete real things, and that the app decides undoability. It also adds a mandatory confirmation step, making the side-effect and risk profile highly transparent.

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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by risk, user-confirmation guidance, and parameter-handling details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition, fluff, or buried critical context.

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?

The description covers target selection, live-call risk, confirmation requirements, argument validation, and multi-account disambiguation. It does not explicitly describe the expected return or result shape, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema, though the dynamic nature of the underlying tool makes that less critical.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: arguments must match the schema returned by search_tools, empty arguments are sent as {}, and the connection property requires copying its enum values exactly and asking the user which account is meant. These details are material for correct invocation and are not present in the input schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Run one tool in one of the user’s connected third-party apps,' and ties the tool name to search_tools. This clearly differentiates it from sibling execute variants like synthetic_tool and toolbox, which are internal constructs rather than third-party app tools.

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?

The description gives explicit directional guidance: use the exact name from search_tools, confirm target and arguments with the user for anything other than a read, and handle multi-account connection properties by asking the user. It does not explicitly name negative-use cases or non-alternatives, but the flow is concrete and sufficient.

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