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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, implying a non-idempotent mutation, but the description adds no behavioral detail. It doesn't disclose whether discovery is synchronous or asynchronous, what state changes occur, or whether results are retrievable via connector_discover_status. The description carries little beyond the annotation hints.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core action. No filler or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 tool triggers an action but lacks explanation of expected outcome, async behavior, or follow-up steps (e.g., polling status). With no output schema and no guidance on the params object, an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior or how to use results.

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% for both parameters: connector_id is described as 'UUID of the connector' and params as 'Optional discovery parameters'. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given the high coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Trigger') and the resource ('schema/metadata discovery') for a specific connector. It distinguishes from siblings like connector_discover_status and connector_discover_results by implying it initiates rather than retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus connector_run, connector_test, or other connector operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical invocation context, or exclusions.

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