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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that sync is one-way, polling-based, and repeats, that written documents are not pushed back, and that connector-owned paths refuse direct edits. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the underlying behavior beyond the bare listing function.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose and usage, then adds behavioral nuance. Each sentence contributes meaning, though the sync semantics section is slightly detailed for a listing tool. Still, that detail justifies its place given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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-required-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is listed, when to call it, how to interpret the results ('ran and failed or never ran'), and the behavioral constraints around sync. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter is 'token' and its schema description already fully explains its purpose and when to pass it (100% schema coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the work.

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 identifies the resource ('what this organization has connected'), the action (listing connected sources), and the key returned aspects (destination, sync status). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly tying the listing to post-connection verification, separating it from connect_org_source or add_org_source.

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?

Gives explicit, actionable use cases: 'Call it after connecting something to confirm it worked' and 'when content you expected is missing... whether the source ran and failed or never ran at all.' This tells an agent exactly when to select this tool over alternatives.

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