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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: it is informational only ('It needs no sign in', 'to connect anything: the person connects in CRM Connector itself') and previews what the answer contains (method, steps, fields with locations, setup link).

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?

The purpose and the question-list are front-loaded and every sentence carries information. Some sentences are long and clause-stacked ('whether connecting means signing in or pasting a key... every field asked for with where to find it in that system'), which slightly hurts scannability but not correctness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still summarizes the response shape well enough to set expectations. For a two-param, read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 params are enums, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the non-obvious conditional use of other_system: only meaningful for googlesheets/spreadsheetfile, where it returns a purpose-built template with a download link — behavior the schema description only partly conveys.

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 states a specific resource (integration connection guides) and enumerates the exact questions it answers — how to connect, what credentials are needed, where to find them, sign-in vs. key. It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_sync_options, so an agent can separate it from the nearest sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Both inclusion ('Use when someone asks how to connect a system...') and exclusion ('Not for what travels between two systems (use find_sync_options) or to connect anything: the person connects in CRM Connector itself') are spelled out with the named alternative. The spreadsheet special case adds a concrete routing rule for other_system.

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