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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds real value beyond that: each entry is a service account with the admin role (a privilege/security fact the annotation cannot convey) and revocation is out-of-band in the Partner Hub (Integrations → Connected apps), telling the agent there is no API path to revoke. It omits pagination/result-count behavior.

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 dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the return-field detail and the revocation note. The em-dash and parenthetical packing make it slightly heavy, but every clause earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, cross-tool linkage, and the out-of-band revocation path. It lacks pagination and ordering details, so it is thorough but not fully complete.

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 is a single optional `orgId` parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics, including the omit-when-single-org rule. The description adds no further parameter guidance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource — apps connected to the organization via "Connect Cluby" OAuth with the `pos` scope — and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, client id, scopes, connect/last-used timestamps). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_orgs or get_pos_connection, which it explicitly cross-references.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is the discovery path for connected apps and the `connectedAppId` link to get_pos_connection is noted. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, so the agent must infer the context.

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