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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false for destruction and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by describing the response payload (permissions, tool_scope_by_domain, coverage dates) and the data_map caveat. It says nothing about what limit/offset do behaviorally, how large the response can get, or whether capability data can lag actual enforcement, so it stays short of rich disclosure.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the trigger sentence, then a dense return-value list, then a single scoping caveat; every sentence carries information. The middle enumeration is long but each item is a distinct return field rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explicit enumeration of returned fields is genuinely necessary and well done. The gap is the six undocumented input parameters; an agent can call the tool with defaults, but it cannot correctly use the filtering and pagination options without guessing.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it largely does not: only 'view' is named, with the data_map value explained. domain, limit, offset, tool_names, entity_type, and metric_family are never mentioned, leaving an agent unable to infer how to filter or page through the tool's output.

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?

The description states a specific resource (account/connection metadata) and enumerates exactly what it returns: key display name and safe prefix, marketplace scope, connection status, source coverage dates, historical access limit, and effective tool access. That clearly separates it from the many performance-oriented siblings like get_sales_summary or diagnose_performance, though it never names an alternative explicitly and the action verb is only implicit ('Returns').

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?

It opens with an explicit 'Use when the user asks about the current connection, marketplace, account access, available date ranges, or enabled tools,' which gives a clear trigger context. It also warns that view=data_map returns source and tool mappings rather than business performance data, an effective when-not signal, but it does not route the agent to a named sibling for actual performance data.

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