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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the full oauth_status value set, the fact that expired means a refused token refresh and that jobs are skipped until reconnect (with an instruction not to retry), and the caveat that `selected=false` says nothing about connectivity. That is exactly the operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative "Start here" and ordered from purpose to per-field semantics to decision rules. Information-dense with almost no filler, though the oauth_status sentence is long and stacks five states plus a parenthetical caveat, which slightly hurts scanability.

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, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does, enumerating oauth_status states and the selected/is_active relationship. For a zero-param discovery tool, nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description compensates well by defining the semantics of the fields the agent will act on (id, oauth_status, selected, is_active alias), leaving no ambiguity about what the returned values mean.

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+resource ("List the CRM connections this tenant has") and immediately names what makes it distinct: it returns the id every other tool requires. This is clearly separable from siblings like list_crm_users or get_crm_record, which operate on records rather than connections.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: "Start here: every other tool must name a connection." It then gives the decision procedure — use the sole connection when there is one, and ask the person when there are several and the request doesn't specify. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-stop-and-ask cases are covered.

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