sweeppea_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the authentication requirement (critical behavioral context), but omits other behavioral traits such as whether the connection is cached, what happens if credentials are invalid, or the specific format/structure of the returned connection details.

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 consists of exactly two high-value sentences: the first establishes purpose and domain context, while the second states mandatory prerequisites. There is no redundant or filler text; every word serves a specific function for agent decision-making.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential information needed for invocation: what it does, what it requires, and what it returns (broadly). A minor gap remains in not specifying the structure of the 'connection details' return value, though this is partially mitigated by the tool's likely role as a preliminary setup call.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, which per the rubric establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters, and the absence of parameter documentation does not hinder tool invocation since no arguments are required.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection details'), immediately clarifying the tool's function. It also provides domain context explaining that Sweeppea involves '66 tools for legally compliant sweepstakes management,' which helps the agent understand the server's purpose even without sibling tools to differentiate from.

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 effectively states prerequisites ('Requires a Sweeppea subscription and API key'), preventing invocations by unauthenticated agents. While it lacks explicit 'when-to-use' guidance (e.g., 'call this first'), the tool name 'sweeppea_connect' combined with the credential requirements sufficiently implies this is an initialization step.

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