connect_info

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: returns `requires_key`, `connected`, and a `connect` block with signup URL and steps. It also details the decision flow and how the key is reused on future `execute` calls, giving the agent a complete mental model without needing 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?

The description is reasonably sized given the behavioral detail it conveys. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows into return values and decision logic. The line breaks and bold formatting improve readability. Every sentence contributes to understanding how and when to use the tool.

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?

Despite having a single parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: when to call, what is returned, how to interpret the results, and what actions to take next. It even mentions key reuse and the free-tool case, making the tool self-contained and highly usable.

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?

The schema has one parameter `tool_id`, and the description does not explicitly name or describe it. However, the description's phrase 'Get a tool's onboarding process' makes it clear that `tool_id` identifies which tool to inspect. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by implying the parameter's role, but it doesn't add format or constraint details 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a tool's onboarding process' and explains the broader purpose of walking the user through connecting the tool. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by referencing the `onboard`/`execute` flow and the `needs_key` condition, making it unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage criteria: 'call this before `onboard`/`execute` whenever a tool's `use` column reads `needs_key`.' It also gives an alternative path when `requires_key` is false, stating to skip straight to `execute`. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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