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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: result ordering (existing connectors, cross-company accounts, native doors, catalog), the 'never open internet' scoping rule, and the reuse suggestion ('use that account?'). It enriches the safety profile with domain-specific search behavior.

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 description is front-loaded with the trigger ('When a goal needs a service'), then enumerates result categories, then gives an exclusion and a follow-up action. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler; the dashes and parentheses improve readability without bloating.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description explains what kind of results appear and in what order, which is critical for an agent to interpret the response. It stops short of detailing pagination or error cases, but those are minor for a straightforward registry search given its simple parameter set.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the optional query filter and the companyId requirements. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning; it only implies search semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'search here' for the connector registry, and enumerates exactly what it returns (existing connectors, admin accounts on other companies, FreedomOS-native doors, vetted/rented catalog). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling request_connector by stating the follow-up call, so an agent can differentiate them without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use: 'When a goal needs a service' and a negative instruction: 'do not stop at not-connected.' It also sets an exclusion ('Never the open internet') and gives a clear next step ('Then call request_connector with the name'), fully routing the agent among alternatives.

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