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

Annotations only carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: entries disclose how credentials arrive, browser/Composio-auth entries cannot be completed by this answer and require a human on the dashboard, and the website-callable attribute is a marker rather than a filter. The auth prerequisite is also disclosed.

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?

Purpose and routing trigger are front-loaded, and each paragraph carries a distinct point (what it is, what entries disclose, how to read the callable marker). It is longer than typical and includes mild rhetorical padding such as "no answer here can stand in for that."

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 does the work of explaining return-entry semantics and the auth prerequisite, which is adequate for a one-parameter read tool. It remains qualitative about entry fields and says nothing about ordering or result size, so exact shape is still inferred.

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 description never mentions org_name, but schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains the default-organization behavior well, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional syntax or meaning is contributed by the description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the connectors Valet curates") and immediately scopes it as the catalog an organization creates a connector from, which is precisely what distinguishes it from list_connectors. An agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

It explicitly names the trigger ("Reach for it when list_connectors returned nothing that serves the data a page needs") and the alternative sibling. It also states the prerequisite ("Requires connecting a Valet account") and the read-only, idempotent nature of the call.

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