getOrgConnectionMap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by detailing the output structure: it explains that projects without assignments are included with konto_id: null, and that completeness is indicated by 'vollstaendig' with 'fehlt' for missing items. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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 is well-structured: it opens with the core question, then details the row structure, and ends with the special case of unassigned projects. It is informative without being excessively verbose, though a bit long. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the key point about null konto_id is front-loaded in the final sentence.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive: the exact fields per row, the inclusion of unassigned projects, and the naming conventions for completeness. There is nothing missing that an agent needs to understand the tool's behavior or interpret the response 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on output 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: mapping projects to advertising accounts, with one row per project and platform. It specifies the output content including credential level, account name, hint, primary flag, and completeness status. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like listOrgConnections, the focus on the project-to-account mapping and the inclusion of unassigned projects gives it a distinct identity.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need a project-account mapping with completeness details), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance about choosing this over listOrgConnections or getConnectionInventory, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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