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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and purity profile is fully covered by structured data. The description only adds that the listing is scoped to one language and covers resources plus methods – modest extra context beyond the annotations.

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 is listed and followed by the sibling routing hint. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what content is returned (resources and methods for a language) and where to go for detail. Fully callable as-is, with only minor room to describe return shape/pagination, which the annotations largely make moot.

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 plus a full enum of supported languages, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Lists) and resource (resources and methods exposed by one language's Connect SDK), and names the sibling it is not (getConnectSdkMethod). An agent can distinguish it from getConnectEndpointSchema and mapConnectEndpointToSdk without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to getConnectSdkMethod when the full signature/doc of a single method is needed. It lacks an explicit inverse condition (e.g. 'use this first to discover method names'), but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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