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

Annotations already establish it is a safe read-only, open-world search, so the bar is lower, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that results are runnable recipes, that exact tool_name matches rank first over fuzzy hits, that the catalog is tens of thousands of rows and cannot be listed wholesale, and that blank queries yield a browse view. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Usage guidance is front-loaded, but the body is two very long, em-dash-heavy sentences with a bloated domain enumeration ('contacts and people, notes and memories, events and guest lists...'). The information is relevant, but the wall-of-text structure hurts scanability and could be tightened considerably.

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 return-format burden and does so: recipes, endpoint_id handoff to connections_execute, verbose-based shape control, and the browse-vs-list distinction. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 documents all four parameters and baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new semantics beyond the schema: the blank-query browse behavior, the interaction of `service` with a blank query to list one service's rows, and the precedence rules for exact tool_name matches.

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 (search) and resource (the Connections operator catalog of API endpoints) and enumerates the covered domains: contacts, notes, events, deals, bookings, email, orders, payments, connected services. It also distinguishes itself from the dedicated siblings in the roster by scoping to 'anything Connections holds that has no dedicated tool in this roster.'

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: reach for it when no dedicated roster tool covers the request, or when you need an endpoint by name, and it routes forward to connections_execute via endpoint_id. It does not name specific alternative tools (e.g. connections_notes_search, connections_contacts_list) explicitly, only referring to the roster generically, so the exclusion is implied rather than enumerated.

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