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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses important behaviors: connectors load after project-scoped secret-key authentication, empty queries list connectors, compact hits may need a follow-up exact schema lookup, schema-detail mode never fuzzy-matches and returns at most one hit, and compact discovery paginates at at most 20 per page.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs only operationally relevant details. It is dense and could be more scannable, but no sentence is clearly wasted.

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 six-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the missing context an agent needs: authentication prerequisite, empty-query behavior, connection-specific namespace behavior, follow-up schema loading, pagination limits, and the handoff to execute.

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 the schema already defines each parameter. The description still adds meaningful relationships: namespace selects a connectionKey or sazabi, includeInputSchema requires namespace plus a non-empty query copied from the hit's name, and projectId matters for org-scoped credentials.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search connected MCP tools and the Sazabi API. It clearly positions the tool as discovery for execute, including how hits can be supplied to execute({ name, arguments }).

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 gives explicit usage rules: empty query lists connectors rather than the SDK catalog, a provider with multiple connections returns those connections, namespace scopes to one connection or the Sazabi API, and includeInputSchema is used only after selecting a hit by namespace and copied name.

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