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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the detail that it returns 'connection status', which is useful context, but it does not elaborate on what counts as a connector or how status is represented. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is informative, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple read-only list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: it lists connectors and their status. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the list includes all connectors or if any pagination/limitations apply, but given the tool's simplicity this is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100% coverage) by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. There is nothing to add.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'connectors', and specifies that it returns 'connection status'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all focused on other entity types like company_lists, contact_lists, or signals.

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 implies usage for checking connectors and their statuses, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no similarly named sibling tools, so alternatives are not relevant, but the description could have noted a use case like 'check before sending data' to be clearer.

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