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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds rich, non-obvious behavioral detail: it runs for real with no preview, side effects occur, results are text (not JSON) with varied formats, some servers refuse tools due to credential scope, and errors carry the connector's own text. This goes well beyond structured fields.

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 front-loaded with purpose and well-structured into logical paragraphs. Each paragraph addresses a distinct concern (purpose, rationale, side effects, prerequisites, error handling). There is minor redundancy in the side-effects warning ('runs for real' / 'not a dry run'), but overall it is appropriately sized for a complex, destructive tool.

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 complexity (destructive, open world, nested args, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers return format, error behavior, prerequisites, side effects, and scope limitations. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references args matching the tool's input schema from list_connector_tools, but this is already stated in the schema. It adds marginal value by reinforcing the relationship but no new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Run one tool on a connector attached to a website and return what the connector answered.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the sampling step and explicitly contrasting with list_connector_tools (schema) and attach_connector (attachment). An agent can identify its role without ambiguity.

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 describes when to use it ('before you write any page code'), when not to use it ('Prefer a read-only tool when you are only learning the shape'), and the prerequisites (connector already attached, HTTP MCP server, Valet account). It also names the alternative (list_connector_tools) and advises asking the user before mutations.

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