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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals that this is a non-mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the test validates syntax, checks connectivity, or performs a dry run. Since the safety profile is covered by annotations, the description is adequate but does not go beyond what is already declared.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, the brevity results in a lack of substantive detail, which slightly reduces the score from a 5, but as a concise statement it is well-structured.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'test' entails, what a successful test looks like, whether it returns a status or result, or any prerequisites. An agent would lack enough information to interpret the outcome or know how to handle errors. Given the minimal annotation coverage (only readOnlyHint), the description carries the burden of explaining behavior but fails to do so.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'config' with the description 'Connector config to test.' The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 action ('Test') and a specific resource ('connector configuration'). It is not a tautology and gives a basic sense of what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like connector_test or connector_run, which could also involve testing or executing a connector. The name itself hints at the scope, but the description does not explicitly differentiate.

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. It does not mention that connector_test might be for testing the full connector, or that connector_discover might be for schema discovery. There are no exclusions or conditions provided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and context.

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