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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint, so safety and external-data traits are covered structurally. The description adds the return shape [{value,label}] and the chaining contract, but says nothing about latency, caching, empty results, or failures for providers with no connected credential — relevant given openWorldHint=true and the credentialId param. It adds value but not much behavioral depth beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short clauses front-load the purpose, the dependency, and the return contract with zero filler. Every sentence carries information the agent needs to chain the calls correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief return mention suffices and the core chaining contract is present. However, for a 5-param, 4-required tool that resolves live external data, the description leaves the identity/credential parameters and multi-connection disambiguation unexplained, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining `field` (the one marked dynamic) and implying provider matches list_operations output. But `resource`, `operation`, and `credentialId` remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, including whether credentialId is required when multiple connections exist. The phrase 'pass the `value` in params' is also ambiguous about which tool's params are meant.

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 (resolve) and object (valid values for a dynamic field), and pins it to the sibling that produces the `dynamic` marker, integration.list_operations, with a concrete example (Slack channels). An agent can tell this apart from integration.query or integration.list_operations without opening any 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?

Gives a clear precondition: only call this for a field marked `dynamic` by integration.list_operations, and it names that sibling explicitly. It also tells the agent what to do downstream ('pass the `value` in params'). No explicit when-not-to-use or note about what to do for static enum fields, so it falls short of a 5.

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