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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Browse') but doesn't confirm idempotency, auth requirements, or whether the action is expensive. No mention of response format or side effects.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it omits necessary details about parameters and usage, so it is concise but not optimally informative.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., need a connector_id from list_connectors), how results are returned, or how this differs from similar tools like 'preview_browse_connector'.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not add meaning to the 'connector_id' parameter. It doesn't specify format, source, or how to obtain valid IDs. The phrase 'one saved live connector' hints at the parameter's role but lacks sufficient detail.

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 ('browse'), the resource ('one saved live connector'), and the purpose ('discover files, tables, endpoints, or items'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_connectors' or 'test_connector'.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'preview_browse_connector' or 'test_connector' might be more appropriate for testing, or that 'list_connectors' is needed to obtain a connector_id.

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