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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description adds the crucial nuance that despite executing an operation, only GET-style reads/lookups are permitted and non-conforming calls are refused pre-flight — this reconciles the mutation-capable annotation with safe behavior. It stops short of covering auth requirements, rate limits, or failure semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core two-mode behavior, then constraints, then parameter provenance — a good information order with no filler sentences. The enumeration of lookup kinds ('dropdown, list, schema or folder picker') is dense but earns its place by bounding what is allowed.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested free-form 'parameters' object and no output schema, the description covers modes, the pre-flight rejection rule, and return shape at a high level ('returns the raw reply'). The gap is what the no-operationId test result looks like and pagination behavior, which is left entirely to the schema's continuationUrl note.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by documenting the omission semantics of operationId (falls back to the connector's own test) and the provenance of connectionName (list_live_connections) and operation ids (describe_live_connector).

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 and resource ('Test a connection') and immediately splits it into two precise modes: connector self-test without operationId, single-operation invocation with operationId. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though sibling differentiation is only indirect (it names other tools as parameter sources rather than as alternatives it replaces).

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 explicit when-to-use rules for both modes ('Without operationId ... With operationId ...') plus an explicit exclusion: only GET operations and connector-declared lookups are allowed, and 'Anything else is refused before a call is made.' It also tells the agent where to obtain connectionName and operation ids, removing guesswork.

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