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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds important non-obvious behavior: it opens a real connection, is rate-limited per organization, and persists nothing. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover side effects, the sibling alternative, and return values. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 strong annotations and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers side effects, rate limiting, persistence behavior, and the returned fields. The main gap is the undocumented `config` parameter, which prevents full completeness for a tool with a nested object parameter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never explains the `config` object or acceptable `connector_type` values. It only mentions connector_type among the returned fields, not as an input parameter. The phrase 'inline connector definition' hints at config's role but is too vague for correct invocation.

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 specific verb ('Browse'), a specific resource ('one inline connector definition'), and the discovery outcome ('files, tables, endpoints, or items'). It also differentiates from browse_connector by emphasizing 'without saving it', making the tool's scope immediately clear.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use browse_connector for saved connectors, which is the key alternative. It also signals that this tool is for inline/unsaved definitions and warns that a real connection is opened, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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