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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context ('the plan required and official source'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about behavior when no steps exist or about rate/source freshness.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key content (steps, required plan, official source) front-loaded. The sentence is a noun fragment rather than a verb-led statement, but nothing is padded.

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 only two required, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials including what the response contains. It is still thin on when to call it and what happens on a miss, which matters for a lookup tool an agent must choose deliberately.

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 'app' and 'ai' are already documented in the schema (including the AI assistant examples). The description adds no syntax, casing, or matching guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 resource ('steps to connect an app to an AI assistant') and implies retrieval of that content. It contrasts implicitly with discovery-oriented siblings (list_connectors, what_can_i_connect) but never names them, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as what_can_i_connect. An agent must guess that this is the follow-up call after discovering a connector.

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