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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what annotations cannot express: that results include the fields each section renders and whether a source is already attached, plus its role as a validation step before connecting. Pagination and auth requirements are unstated.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the sequencing instruction. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (fields rendered plus whether a source exists), and it covers the call ordering relative to connect_data_source. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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%, so both `site_id` and the optional `user_goal` are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only implies site scoping via "The site's content sections" and adds nothing about the purpose of `user_goal`.

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+resource — the site's content sections that an outside data source can fill – and spells out the distinguishing content (the fields each section renders and whether a source already exists). This clearly separates it from plausible confusions like list_collections or list_data_sources, which do not expose bindability or field-level rendering.

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 tells the agent to call it before connect_data_source so that `content_key` names a real section, which is concrete prerequisite guidance. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or contrast against other listing siblings, so it stops short of the top band.

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