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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation ('browse without saving'). It also hints at the discovery of various item types. However, it does not detail permissions, rate limits, or the exact response format. Still, it provides sufficient transparency for a preview tool.

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 of 13 words, front-loading the core action and outcome. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. It is highly concise and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details on the config object's structure and the return format. It is adequate but not fully complete; additional context about the config parameter would improve usability.

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 has no descriptions for its two parameters (config and connector_type), and the description only indirectly suggests that config holds the inline definition. No detailed semantics are provided, leaving the agent to guess the structure of config and the expected values for connector_type.

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 verb 'browse', the resource 'inline connector definition', and the scope 'without saving it to discover files, tables, endpoints, or items'. This effectively distinguishes the tool from other connector-related tools like browse_connector, which likely persists the connection.

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 implies usage for exploration by saying 'without saving it', but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like browse_connector or test_connector. Given the large number of sibling tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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