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

Beyond the annotations' readOnly/idempotent hints, it discloses the half the annotations can't: which credential types are accepted, that an API key earns a 403, that an unclaimed self-registered workspace is refused with 403, and that results are ordered newest first with this_app marking the calling connection. This is exactly the context an agent needs to avoid a failed call.

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 dense paragraph, but the core action and ordering come first and the credential/workspace constraints follow. The final two sentences about credentials are long and slightly repetitive, but each carries a distinct 403 case that 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming every returned field (id, name, host, workspace, access/scopes, connected and last-used timestamps, this_app). Combined with the auth failure modes, an agent knows both what it gets back and when the call will be rejected.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's field enumeration is effectively return-value documentation rather than parameter semantics, and nothing 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the apps you connected to Last Price by signing in') and enumerates the fields returned, which separates it cleanly from list_demo_apps and from the mutation tool disconnect_connected_app. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 preconditions for calling: a credential that names a person and a claimed workspace, plus the exact failure modes (API key → 403; sandbox key → 403 until claimed). It does not name a sibling alternative, but no sibling performs the same listing, so the guidance is sufficient in context.

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