get_project_connector_route_descriptor

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context: it emphasizes that OAuth IDs, credentials, connector configuration, and unexpected server fields are never returned, and that access is authenticated at multiple levels. This enriches understanding of the tool's security guarantees.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear first sentence and supporting details. Some phrasing like 'Spring authenticates' and 'governed execution' is slightly decorative, but it does not detract from clarity.

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?

The description explains the output shape (strict allowlist with specific fields) and references the related list_project_connector_accounts tool for parameter context. It does not discuss error handling or edge cases, but for a read-only lookup tool with idempotent semantics, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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?

Although the JSON schema provides no parameter descriptions, the description text explicitly explains each parameter: project_id as authenticated Project UUID, connector_account_ref as exact alias from list_project_connector_accounts, and tool_name as exact hosted Tool key. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 purpose: to resolve sanitized governed route coordinates for a specific account and Tool, returning a strict allowlist with connector UUID, tool version, and route digest. The verb 'resolve' and specific resource 'route descriptor' are 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 implies usage for obtaining route descriptors needed by trusted SDK hosts, and parameter guidance references list_project_connector_accounts for the exact alias. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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