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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds real semantic context beyond them: the distinction between a rule's default and its neutral value, and concrete examples of what a default does (strips company suffixes, formats phones, abbreviates streets) versus neutral (leaves the value alone). It stops short of noting response size or pagination behavior.

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 payload, then the default-vs-neutral clarification, then the use cases. Slightly wordy ('Default and neutral differ and both matter') but every sentence carries meaning; no filler.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the catalog's contents. It could go further on ordering or size, but for a two-parameter read tool it is essentially complete.

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 parameters (object_type, connection_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly reinforces that object_type scopes which fields are returned; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (the normalization option space) and enumerates exactly what it contains: canonicalisable field types with rules, each rule's options, default and neutral values, plus the fields this connection carries. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like preview_normalize_scheme or get_default_rule_config from the description alone.

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?

It gives two concrete when-to-use cases: reading it to understand what a normalize template's config means, and checking whether a scheme names only fields the connection has. It doesn't explicitly name competing siblings (e.g., preview_normalize_scheme), so it falls short of a full when-not/alternative statement.

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