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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' does signal a non-mutating read of status data, which is the key behavioral fact here, but the description says nothing about permissions, response shape, or whether the list can be empty/filtered.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the enumerated connector types come early. It is efficiently sized for a simple list tool, if a touch sparse.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and for whom, which is the essential information. It falls short on the one parameter it takes and on what the returned status values look like.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter agent_id is undocumented. The phrase 'for a support agent' hints that agent_id identifies the support agent, but the description never confirms this or explains the expected identifier format.

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 (List) and resource (connector status) and enumerates the connector types covered (WhatsApp, Instagram, Email, X), scoped to a support agent. It is clearly distinguishable from the scan-related siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, what preconditions apply, or what alternatives exist. The agent must infer from the name alone that this retrieves connector status rather than modifying anything.

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