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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape: each result reports how the app connects and whether it is already connected, which the agent needs to decide its next call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then result contents, then the follow-up call. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so adequately (connection method + connection status). Minor gaps remain: no mention of result ordering, pagination, or behavior when the query matches nothing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (query, limit with default 10 and max 25) are fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that query is by app name and hints at a returned 'type' field, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (Search) plus resource (apps Zenning can connect) and scopes it with 'by name'. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_apps (which presumably lists already-connected apps) because the description frames results as candidates plus connection status.

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?

Provides explicit forward routing: 'To connect one, pass its type to connect_app,' which tells the agent the follow-up action and required argument. It does not explicitly contrast with list_apps or state when a search is preferred over browsing, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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