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

With annotations already covering readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable transparency: 'No URLs or secrets are returned' and the inclusion of connection type, methods, and tools. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but that is a minor gap given the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, what is excluded for security, and how to use the output in create_run. The information is front-loaded and waste-free.

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 parameterless list tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: it explains return fields and a security exclusion, and ties output to create_run. It could mention whether all connections are returned or any ordering, but the core behavior is covered.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly avoids unnecessary detail.

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 clearly states the resource (the organization's saved connections a run may use) and includes the returned fields (type, allowed methods and tools). It is a specific verb+resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list_* tools beyond the resource name.

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 supplies clear usage context by saying 'Reference one in create_run by name,' which tells the agent when to call this tool. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming alternative list tools.

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