connects_resources

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does add the resource scope and confirms no transactional side effects, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or result ordering.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and boundaries with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, much of the operational context is already provided. However, the relationship between 'fair_id' and the 'fairs' collection, the meaning of 'view', and search/filter behavior are left ambiguous, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for six parameters. It only maps to the 'collection' parameter by listing its enum values; it does not explain 'query', 'limit', 'offset', 'view', or 'fair_id' semantics, leaving the agent reliant on raw schema property names.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and the exact resources it covers: jobs, mentorships, marketplace, stores, or fairs. It also differentiates itself from transactional operations by explicitly excluding purchases, applications, and payments.

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?

It gives clear context by saying the tool is for reading a defined set of collections, and it adds an explicit boundary with 'No purchases, applications or payments.' It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the scope is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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