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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does so with a meaningful behavioral constraint: connect WITHOUT ever asking the user for credentials. It does not describe the return shape or size of the guidance, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the imperative 'REQUIRED' and the gating condition, followed by the three content areas covered. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema knowledge tool, the description tells the agent when to fetch it and what topics it covers, which is enough to call it correctly. A brief note on what the response looks like (e.g., step-by-step instructions) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 specifies the content the tool delivers: researching a target service, building a field mapping, and connecting it. It is clearly a guidance/skill retrieval tool and is distinguishable from siblings like set_delivery or get_skill_form_management. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement (e.g., 'returns step-by-step instructions for...'), leaving the 'what do I actually get back' slightly implicit.

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?

It states an explicit trigger ('REQUIRED before changing where form submissions go') and names the exact sibling operation it precedes (set_delivery). An agent knows precisely when to call this and which action it gates.

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