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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key workflow behavior beyond the schema: entries include capability summaries and connection instructions, and the not-live path requires an honesty statement, a workaround, and a follow-up call to connector_request. It stops short of stating whether results are paginated or complete.

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 what the tool returns, then the trigger conditions, then the fallback procedure. The example tool names earn their space by anchoring intent recognition. Slightly dense mid-sentence but 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?

The description explains what each catalog entry contains, so the absence of an output schema is acceptable, and the no-annotation read-only nature is self-evident for a catalog. The one real gap is the undocumented category filter, which matters given zero schema coverage.

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 0% and the description must compensate for two enum parameters. It indirectly maps the status values ('live', 'next being built', 'planned') but never clarifies 'researching', and the category parameter is not mentioned at all — an agent must guess what each category means.

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?

Names a specific resource (the connector catalog) and enumerates its contents — live, next, planned, each with what it gives the agent and how to connect. Easily distinguished from siblings like describe_product or tendeck_help. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_addons, which is the one plausible confusion point.

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?

Explicit trigger ('does Tendeck work with X?' or naming a tool like dotloop, SkySlope, Zillow), explicit handling for the negative case (be honest, give the 'today' workaround), and an explicit alternative (connector_request) for recording interest. Nothing is left to inference.

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