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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds materially: the redaction contract ('never returns a credential, a header or environment value, or a URL path'), the exact enumerable credential states, and an auth prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account'). Those are behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then return contents, then usage triggers, then the redaction guarantee and auth requirement. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; no filler or restated title.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value burden and does: it enumerates the fields returned and, unusually, states what is deliberately withheld. Auth prerequisite and failure-investigation use case are both covered, leaving no gap an agent needs before calling.

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 100% with only two params, and the schema already documents org_name's omission default and connector's required status. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraint beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one organization connector') and enumerates the returned facets: kind, transport, catalog entry, credential state, and holders. This clearly separates it from list_connectors (plural enumeration) and call_connector (invocation), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions: 'when a connector's calls fail' and 'before destroying one.' That is real when-to-use guidance rather than implication. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., list_connectors for browsing), so it stops short of a 5.

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