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

The description discloses several important behaviors beyond the annotations: inputs with unknown parents return status 'needs', match is case-insensitive and never fuzzy, matchCount 0 yields status 'nomatch', long lists are marked truncated, and addressing inputs inside objects by key is explained. Annotations only convey read-only/non-destructive intent, while the description adds the operational nuances an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose and scope, then packs parameter behavior, examples, and edge cases into compact statements. Despite the length, there is no filler or repetition of the schema, so it remains scannable and efficient.

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 16 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors the agent must understand: match semantics, statuses like 'needs' and 'nomatch', truncation, connection selection, and the outputs include option. It even addresses the dynamicMetadata exception. The description is complete enough for a complex live-resolution tool.

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%, yet the description still adds meaningful semantics: match examples, browse structure, folder /path behavior, the difference between search and a pick, and dynamicMetadata's special use case. It also clarifies aliases like apiName for connectorName and the flowName/actionName shortcut. The description significantly enriches the schema definitions.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('a connector operation's live input values') and enumerates concrete input kinds: dropdown options, list and table columns, folder and file pickers. It also clarifies the two modes: every input in one call or a single input via parameterName. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_live_connector or get_live_flow.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: pass existing values in parameters, use match to convert display names to values, and omit connectionName to let one be chosen. It explicitly states dynamicMetadata is not needed for the operation's own inputs and only needed for lookups the connector does not define. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the usage context is still well-defined.

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