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

The description uses non-destructive verbs ('find', 'retrieve') and aligns with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction exists between the description and the declared behavioral hints.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary detail or repetition. It is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 effectively communicates what the tool does and what it returns (argument schemas), which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema. It allows an agent to understand the tool's role and expected output without extra context.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters (query, limit, toolkit, contract) and the description matches their purpose, but it adds no extra semantic depth beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to find external actions and retrieve their argument schemas. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connection_call and connection_list by focusing on discovery and schema retrieval rather than execution or listing.

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 phrase 'before execution' provides a clear timing and use case, but it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when to prefer this over connection_call or connection_list. Still, the core usage guidance is present.

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