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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the catalog is large ('thousands'), it is reached 'through the apps lane', and results merge the catalog with the account's existing connections. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what identifiers come back.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded ahead of the search instruction. The parenthetical '(thousands, through the apps lane)' is a slightly awkward interjection, but it carries real information about scale and access path.

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 safe, annotated read tool with no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers the essentials. However, it never indicates what a result entry contains — critically, whether it returns the connection/app identifier an agent would need for follow-up calls such as get_connection_status or list_connectable_app_tools — which is the main thing an agent needs to chain calls 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the load. 'Search by name' usefully constrains the `search` parameter to name matching (not URL, category, or ID), but `limit` — with its default of 30 and cap of 100 — is never mentioned, and behavior with an empty search term is left ambiguous.

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 names a specific resource (third-party apps an agent can be connected to) and states the search dimension (by name), plus a scope detail: results include the account's own connections as well as the catalog. That is enough to tell it apart from bare catalog tools like list_connection_catalog or list_connections, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the lookup step before connecting an app, and 'Search by name' hints at the query mode. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_connections, list_integrations, or list_connectable_app_tools, and no stated prerequisites such as needing an agent or app context.

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