Connector usage guide

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real content-level transparency by disclosing what the guide surfaces — units, coordinate system, and concrete gotchas like localized library names, top-linked walls, and undo. It does not describe the return format or size, but the categories of content are clearly disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a single dense parenthetical enumerating contents and a closing call-to-action. The list is information-rich rather than padding, though the parenthetical is long enough that the sentence gets slightly unwieldy.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the guide contains and when to invoke it, and annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and use it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full usage guide for this connector') and immediately enumerates its scope (units, coordinate system, element references, workflows, gotchas). It is trivially distinguishable from every sibling, which are all action tools, since this one is explicitly a meta/reference tool.

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?

Gives a clear usage trigger with 'Read it before complex tasks,' and notes it contains routing information ('which tool to use for what'), which is implicitly a when-to-use guide. It stops short of naming specific alternatives or describing when NOT to read it, so it is strong but not exhaustively prescriptive.

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