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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes recent executions, which is useful return-content context not present in any output schema, but it says nothing about how far back 'recent' reaches, whether results are paginated, or what a failed connector status looks like.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded. It is efficient but perhaps too terse for a tool whose output the agent must interpret.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched and that execution history is included. No output schema exists, but the description names the return payload categories adequately for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('UUID of the connector'), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Get) and resource (connector status and recent executions), telling an agent exactly what information comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings such as connector_test, connector_discover_status, or connector_run, which an agent may reasonably confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than connector_test, connector_discover_status, or connector_run, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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