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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), yet the description adds real context beyond them: the account-connection requirement, the decision to mark (not hide) rows a website cannot hold, and the fact that tool schemas are deliberately excluded. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return shape before the constraint paragraphs, and each paragraph earns its place. It is on the longer side and restates some schema-level parameter detail, so it is efficient rather than maximally tight.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so (name, kind, transport, catalog entry, capability flags per row). It also covers the hosting constraints for websites/apps/agents and the auth prerequisite, leaving nothing essential unstated.

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%, and the description's explanation of the `name` and `org_name` semantics largely mirrors the schema text. It reinforces intent but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 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 ('List the organization's connectors') and enumerates the returned fields (name, kind, transport, catalog entry). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming attach_connector and list_connector_tools as the adjacent steps.

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 positions the tool as 'the discovery step before attach_connector' and routes schema lookups to list_connector_tools after attaching. It also states the auth precondition ('Requires connecting a Valet account'), so both when-to-use and prerequisites are covered.

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