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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description reinforces it ('Read-only — it writes nothing') and adds real behavioral context: it judges from the company's transactions and excludes already-connected providers. It doesn't cover result format or ordering, but the output schema covers returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and its basis, followed by the read-only note and next action. No wasted text.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly. The only omission is any clarification of the sole parameter, which is a minor gap.

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?

There is one parameter (companyId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies it. The intent is inferable, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap, so only a baseline-adequate 3 is warranted.

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 verb and resource ('reports providers the company is evidently already paying for') and states the exact basis (its own transactions) and scope (skips already-connected ones). An agent can clearly distinguish this from other connection_* tools, which are about listing/searching connected data rather than suggesting new providers.

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 implicitly scopes usage to discovering payable providers from transaction evidence and adds a next-step pointer ('Connect one with StartConnection'). However, it doesn't state explicit when-not conditions or name a sibling alternative, keeping it below a 5.

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