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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, lowering the burden. The description adds the backing API surface ('PostgREST: GET /connectors') and the catalog scope, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a limit parameter, nor about catalog size or refresh cadence.

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 and reasonably tight, but the trailing fragments ('Estuary control-plane table connectors. PostgREST: GET /connectors.') read as leftover notes rather than useful guidance, and the 'table connectors' phrasing sits awkwardly against a Docker-connector catalog.

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 usefully discloses what is returned (titles, descriptions, logos) and that the list can be filtered, and the tool is a simple two-optional-parameter read. Complete enough to call correctly, missing only return-volume/pagination context.

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 limit and recommended are already documented at the schema level. The description's mention of the recommended filter merely restates the parameter and adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail — baseline 3.

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 connector catalog') and enumerates the returned fields (titles, descriptions, logos) plus the connector types (capture/materialization Docker connectors). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as estuary_list_catalog or estuary_list_connector_versions, so an agent still has to infer which list to call.

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 only usage signal is 'Optionally filter to recommended connectors,' which is implied by the schema anyway. There is no statement of when to prefer this over estuary_list_catalog or estuary_list_connector_versions, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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