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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the async nature of bot attachment, which fields expose progress (install.bots[].status, install.attach_summary), the admin-only authorization requirement, and the bot_connectors feature dependency. These are exactly the details an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the polling guidance. The opening 'Get a connector.' mildly restates the title but serves as a lead-in; otherwise there is little waste.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload (one connector card with the account's install, if any) and the specific progress fields to inspect. Combined with the admin and feature requirements, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so both `id` and `fields` are already documented by the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail for them. It does lightly contextualize the `install` field value (progress via install.bots[].status), but this is marginal; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Get a connector') and immediately scopes it as single-record retrieval ('Returns one connector card'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_connectors. An agent can tell what this returns 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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Poll this after connecting or changing a connector', tied to the background attach behavior. It also states the access prerequisite (administrators only) and feature gate (bot_connectors), but names no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use case (e.g. use list_connectors to enumerate).

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