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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the tool does not execute client extensions on hosted servers and only returns a plan, preventing the agent from expecting side effects or actual execution.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical caveat that prevents a common misunderstanding about execution. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a planning-only tool with read-only annotations, the high-level output description ('host-readable execution plan') and non-execution caveat give a solid picture. There is no output schema, so slightly more detail about plan contents would improve completeness, but it is adequate for selecting and invoking this tool alongside its siblings.

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 covers productId and approvedWriteMethods but leaves task and selectedExtensionIds undocumented (50% coverage). The description adds selection/audition context and the list of connection types, which helps interpret selectedExtensionIds, but it does not explain required task semantics or fully map concepts to specific parameters.

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 artifact: it returns a host-readable execution plan. It also names what is being connected (selected local skills, MCP tools, resources, prompts, HTTPS APIs) and clearly positions this as a planning step rather than an execution step, differentiating it from run/execute siblings.

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 clear context: use this when connecting a Pack to explicitly selected, Agent-AVCP-auditioned local extensions. The final sentence implies this is not the tool for executing on hosted servers, but it does not explicitly name alternative siblings or provide a direct when-not-to-use statement.

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