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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it stores a credential (sensitive), fetches 30 days of data, and may take up to a minute. These details help the agent understand the operation's impact and timing, though it could mention idempotency or failure modes explicitly.

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 three sentences, but the first sentence is long and awkwardly structured ('with the fields list_connections names...'), making it harder to parse. The key information is present but not optimally front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: it covers credential storage, timing, data range, and field sourcing. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens on failure or the exact shape of the fields object.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains that 'fields' should contain the field names from list_connections (e.g., an admin key) and gives a concrete example ('provider stripe with a key field connects revenue'). This clarifies both required parameters despite the lack of schema annotations.

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 ('Connects') and resource ('a provider's billing or a coding tool's usage'), making the tool's function clear. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling disconnect_provider, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description includes a prerequisite ('Confirm first: it stores a credential') and points to list_connections for field names, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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