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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the authentication prerequisite and explaining that each connection exposes a vault alias usable via secret_refs on harnesses.

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 sentences contain everything needed: the action, the resource, the additional providers content, a useful parenthetical example, and the auth requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, result contents, authentication needs, and downstream relevance via secret_refs. It does not enumerate the exact response shape, but the tool's low complexity makes the description sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description still enriches understanding by explaining what a returned connection name represents (a vault alias attachable to harnesses).

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and names the resource ('OAuth connections'), then clarifies the response also includes providers available to connect. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_connect, which by name performs the connection action rather than listing state.

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 establishes clear context: it is a discovery/read operation for existing connections and connectable providers, and it requires a logged-in identity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the listing-versus-connecting role is implied strongly enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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