connection_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that results come from local configuration rather than a live remote API, consistent with openWorldHint=false, but it says nothing about what is returned, caching, or how authorization state is determined.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent gets back, yet it never describes the return shape (a list of resources? scopes? connection names?). It is adequate as a label but thin for a tool whose only value is its output.

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 (empty properties, additionalProperties=false), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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 verb 'Mostra' (shows) and the scope 'recursos explicitamente autorizados na configuração local' give a rough sense of purpose, and 'local configuration' does distinguish it from the remote-API siblings (gtm_read, ga4_admin_read, ga4_report, google_ads_search). However, 'recursos' is left undefined — an agent cannot tell whether these are scopes, APIs, accounts, or datasets, so the purpose remains vague.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. It never says to call this before the read tools to verify authorization, which is the obvious usage context given the sibling set.

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