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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description need not repeat that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—it doesn't explain what 'testing connectivity' entails, whether it performs a live network call, what happens on failure, or what the return value looks like. With no output schema and minimal description, an agent lacks insight into the tool's actual behavior.

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, tightly worded sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter tool with a readOnlyHint, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits any indication of the output or result (e.g., success/failure indication) and does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling connector_test_config. Given the ambiguity among sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description is only minimally adequate.

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?

The schema includes a single parameter, connector_id, with a clear description ('UUID of the connector.'), providing 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter—it does not clarify the expected format or how the ID is used. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Test an existing connector's connectivity.' It is specific about the action (testing connectivity) and the resource (existing connector). While there are sibling connector tools, the description's focus on 'connectivity' distinguishes it from general status or configuration testing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like connector_status or connector_test_config. It simply states the action without context about when it is appropriate or when another tool should be preferred. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the number of sibling connector tools.

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