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

With only readOnlyHint=true provided, the description carries the rest and does well: it names the return fields (protocol, documentation URL), the backing table connector_tags, and the PostgREST endpoint GET /connector_tags. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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-loaded with the core action and scope in the first clause, then filters, then implementation detail. The trailing table/endpoint notes are meta but arguably earn their place by telling an agent this is a raw PostgREST read.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description discloses the key returned fields and the underlying endpoint, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only the absence of pagination/ordering guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 there and the baseline is 3. The description restates connector_id as an optional filter but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 available versions (image tags) of connectors') and clarifies the ambiguous term 'versions' as image tags. An agent can distinguish it from estuary_list_connectors, which returns connectors rather than their versions.

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?

The description implies usage by noting the optional connector_id filter and cross-referencing estuary_list_connectors as the source of that id, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus the sibling list tools or what happens with no filter.

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