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

Annotations only say non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent; the description adds the crucial behavior that it may launch third-party OAuth and return an authorization_url for out-of-band approval. The explicit 'never collect verification codes or credentials in chat' rule is high-value safety context not available anywhere in the structured fields, and the non-effects are stated clearly.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, negatives and the follow-up action packed into minimal text. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 an open-world, OAuth-triggering tool with an output schema, the description covers the flow, the human-in-the-loop step, and the follow-up call, so the agent can act correctly. The remaining hole is the unexplained request_id, which belongs to parameter semantics but slightly detracts from overall completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only implicitly covers connector_id via 'owned connection'. The required request_id (a constrained UUID, presumably an idempotency/correlation key) is never mentioned, so an agent gets no guidance on it from any source.

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 names a specific verb ('contact ... to discover or refresh') and resource ('its individual voice-agent tools' on an owned connection), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from list_connectors and create_connector. It is slightly muddled between 'connecting/authenticating' and 'discovering tools', but the two clarifying negatives ('does not invoke external tools or change agent assignments') remove the main ambiguity.

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 both when to use it (to discover/refresh tools, possibly starting OAuth) and what to do next ('Inspect get_connector_tools after authorization'), naming the sibling alternative explicitly. It also excludes two tempting misuses (invoking external tools, changing agent assignments), leaving no inference needed.

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