Connectors: provider reads

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: capabilities vary per installed connector, unsupported providers are refused, and the return format is either provider status or items with native ids reusable by fetch/act.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the core purpose, then the write alternative, then the return contract. No filler or restated annotation boilerplate.

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 describing what comes back (provider status or matching items with native ids). The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention limits/pagination, which the schema constrains but doesn't explain behaviorally.

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 description coverage is 100% and the action/provider semantics (including per-action required params and supported providers) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (connected provider accounts) and enumerates representative providers so the agent knows the surface area. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling navig_connectors_act, which handles writes.

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?

Clear on the read use case and names the alternative ('Use navig_connectors_act to change provider data'), which routes the agent correctly on the read/write boundary. It stops short of explaining which of the four actions to pick in which situation, leaving that to the schema.

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