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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description usefully adds the searchable corpus (connectors, task details, run notes, gotchas), but says nothing about result ordering, limits, empty-result behavior, or pagination – a gap that matters for a search tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the scope first and tucks examples at the end. No wasted clauses, though the enumerated corpus list is slightly dense.

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 single-parameter search tool with readOnly annotations this is close to adequate: the agent knows what is searched and can form a query. However, with no output schema there is no disclosure of what a result looks like, so the definition stops short of fully equipping the caller.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'query' is free-text terms and supplies two examples, but omits the 2-char minimum and 100-char maximum constraints present in 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 (full-text search) plus the resources searched (tested connectors, task details, run notes, gotchas), which is far more than restating the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_connector_report or list_connectors, but 'full-text search' vs 'get'/'list' is functionally evident.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The example terms ('OAuth', 'token') illustrate query shape, not the decision of when this tool should be chosen over get_connector_report or compare_connectors.

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