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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds context annotations cannot: the key field returned (externalId) and its role in step auth. It stops short of describing other returned fields (status, pieceName, displayName).

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 short sentences, zero filler, with what the tool does front-loaded and the reason it matters immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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, side-effect-free list tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description covers the essential return field an agent needs to chain into step configuration. It could note the other returned fields but is otherwise sufficient.

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 100% and each of the three filters (status, pieceName, displayName) is documented in the schema with auto-expansion and partial-match semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+scope ('List OAuth/app connections in the project') and adds the downstream purpose of the result ('externalId needed for the auth parameter on steps'). No sibling tool in the list also enumerates connections, so it is inherently distinguishable from the flow/step/record tools.

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 second sentence gives real context for when this tool matters: you call it to obtain the externalId an auth parameter requires. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the usage condition is clear enough for an agent to act on.

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