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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the authorization requirement (workspace owners only) and the shape of the access model being reported. It does not say what happens when a non-owner calls it or whether output is redacted, which keeps it below a 5.

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 the resource scope front-loaded and the permission constraint trailing as a qualifier. Every clause contributes: the access modes and sign-in methods define the return surface, and the owner restriction defines who can call it.

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 read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return subject matter, and access control. The remaining gap is failure behavior for unauthorized callers, which is minor here but would matter operationally.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines project_id and its pattern. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and a precisely scoped resource ('who may connect to a connector project'), and it enumerates the three access modes (public, email allowlist, workspace members) plus sign-in methods. It reads clearly as the read counterpart to set_connector_access, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation relies on inference from the verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the inspection call before or after set_connector_access. The one explicit routing constraint is the permission gate ('Workspace owners only'), which is useful. There is no statement of when not to use it or a pointer to the setter for changes.

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