connect_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It lists the response fields (requires_key, connected, signup URL, steps, field) and gives a safe user-facing workflow, but it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free. That is useful context, but for an unannotated tool it leaves key behavioral guarantees implicit.

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 sentences with no filler; the field list is compressed and the not-connected workflow is stated directly. The first sentence is terse enough to be slightly cryptic, but it is not padded or repetitive.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives the returned field names and the next-step workflow, which is enough to attempt a call. It still leaves the parameter meaning and the exact return semantics (types/format of `steps` and `field`) unclear, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 single parameter `tool_id` has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description. 'A tool's...' weakly implies the ID identifies a tool, but no format, source, or example is given. With low schema coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 names the resource ('A tool's connect steps') and enumerates returned fields, so the agent can infer it retrieves connection status/instructions for a tool. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb and never explicitly says 'returns' or 'gets', leaving the action implicit. It mentions `onboard` as a related sibling but does not sharply differentiate this tool from all alternatives.

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 gives a concrete branch: when not connected, show the steps, ask for the key, then call `onboard`. That names a condition and the next tool, which is stronger than generic guidance. It does not state what to do when already connected or when to call this versus other info tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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