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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the trigger-and-wait behavior, the timeout cap with resume via execution_id, and that the job continues server-side on timeout. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, then the sequencing constraint. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what it returns and the sequencing. It covers the trigger-wait-resume pattern and the bind constraint. Missing error handling details, but sufficient for an agent to call it correctly given the complexity.

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 67% (timeout and execution_id have descriptions, connector_id does not). The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, and it fails to compensate for the undocumented connector_id. Adequate but not value-adding.

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 action (Discover a connector's schema), names the resource, and lists exact outputs (streams, columns, primary keys, AI-inferred Supero schemas, field mappings, namespace). It differentiates from sibling connector_discover* tools by framing it as a combined trigger-and-wait operation with sequencing hints.

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?

Explicitly states to run AFTER build_connect_data_source and BEFORE build_bind_data_source, and explains a hard constraint (live bind's source must equal a discovered stream name). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, and distinguishes from the separate connector_discover steps.

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