Connectors

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, and the description goes well beyond them: 'Never returns credentials' is a meaningful data-exposure guarantee, 'account-level key needed' is an auth prerequisite, and 'blocked means an outside party refuses, for example an App Store agreement not accepted' explains a non-obvious status value.

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 purpose, then the status semantics, then the parameter/auth note, then the return shape — a logical order. The middle clause is a dense run-on list of fields, but nothing is padding.

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, the description compensates by naming the response keys ({ organizationId, available, planned, instances, legacy }) and distinguishing 'available' vs 'planned' kinds, plus flagging the credential omission. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema's own description already explains the default-to-key-owner behavior, so the description's 'Optional organizationId' is largely redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the sources connected to an organization') immediately followed by a precise inventory of what each entry contains (kind, status, scopes, capabilities, project bindings). The 'Read-only' closing statement cleanly separates it from the sibling 'request_connector_action', which is the mutating counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of connector state and the note that an account-level key is needed, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative is given. It never tells the agent to prefer this over 'request_connector_action' when it actually wants to change a connector, leaving routing to inference.

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