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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds useful context beyond that — the backing control-plane table (connector_tags), the PostgREST endpoint, and the shape of returned rows (protocol, documentation URL). It does not disclose pagination behavior despite a limit parameter.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return contents, with no wasted wording. The trailing PostgREST endpoint detail is the only part of marginal value to an agent.

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?

For a simple, parameter-light list tool with readOnlyHint annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional filtering, data source, and partial return shape. Only pagination/limit semantics are left implicit.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates connector_id as an optional filter and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema. 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: list connector versions, clarified as image tags, plus the extra fields returned (protocol, documentation URL). It is distinguishable from estuary_list_connectors by the 'versions' scope and by naming connector_id as coming from that sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

'Optionally filter by connector_id' implies the filtering use case and points at the sibling that yields the id, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for unfiltered listing.

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