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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints: no Valet account required, no organization or site is read, safe before OAuth, and what the returned contract covers (same-origin requests, session helper, 403 handling, session recovery, no caching). This fully discloses the tool's behavioral profile.

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 the core purpose and uses short, purposeful sentences. It is somewhat long with three paragraphs, but each paragraph adds distinct value: what it does, what it returns, and why no auth is needed. No redundant restatement of schema or annotations.

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 input parameters, no output schema, and safe annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining output and behavior. It clearly describes the return content (request contract, session helper, page rules) and the operational context, leaving an agent with enough information to call it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and parameter semantics are not a burden. The description adds value by explaining what the returned artifact means and how it should be used, which is more relevant than parameter documentation for this tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: getting how a page from a Valet site talks to its attached connectors. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_design_system by framing the pair as identity vs. connector communication, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger: call this before writing any page code that fetches from a connector. It also routes the agent to get_design_system for artifact identity, making the alternative explicit and the selection condition clear.

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