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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: every response carries reconnect_url, and when success is false or status is 'need_reconnect,' the agent should surface the link. This gives the agent actionable knowledge about failure behavior and how to handle it.

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 well structured with a clear purpose statement, numbered workflow, explicit usage rule, and a concise error-handling note. Every sentence adds useful information and the most important guidance is 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?

The description is complete for a listing tool: it explains when to use it, how to obtain the required id, what the tool returns, and how to handle reconnect failures. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be repeated in the description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by saying workspace_connector_id comes from well_list_connectors and that args should be shaped from the input schema returned here, but most parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema.

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: 'Discover the actions a connected provider exposes' and explicitly says the tool returns 'name + description + input schema' for each action. It also names sibling tools like well_list_connectors and well_invoke_connector_tool, making the purpose easy to distinguish.

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 provides a clear workflow: list connectors, pick the enabled provider, then call this tool, then invoke. It explicitly says to use it 'whenever you don't already know a connector's tool names — never guess them,' which is strong and direct usage guidance with no ambiguity about when it applies.

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