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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it requires live dashboard edit permission, explains that module sources are only available if the module is installed, and warns that a queue ID alone does not grant access.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds permission and access caveats. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 simple list operation with strong annotations, the description covers the main requirements: what is listed, the permission needed, and a key access caveat. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but 'Discover queues' sufficiently implies a list result, and the missing metadata is minor.

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 only 33%, so the tool description must compensate for the undocumented limit and offset parameters. It does not: no parameter is explained in the description, and artifact_id is only indirectly referenced as 'this team-created Pulse'. The schema carries the only real parameter documentation.

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 ('Discover') and resource ('queues ... this team-created Pulse'), and clarifies that this is about what the current editor may connect before sampling data. It is clear in intent, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like listPulseDashboardConnections or connectPulseDataSource.

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 gives a clear usage moment ('before sampling data') and states permission requirements. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to recognize this as a pre-connection discovery step.

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