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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavioral fact: 'Secrets are never returned.' It also describes the payload (connectors plus kind catalog and config/secret schemas), removing ambiguity about what a read of this tool exposes. It does not mention pagination, permissions, or that the operation is non-mutating beyond what 'list' implies.

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 front-loaded sentences that state the primary action first and the secondary payload second, with the security caveat last. The parenthetical vendor list is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by defining what a 'connector' is for an unfamiliar agent.

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-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description does the work structured data cannot: it explains what comes back (connectors + kind catalog + config/secret schemas) and the redaction guarantee. The only gap is the absence of any tie-breaker against the sibling list_integrations.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax for the description to clarify. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed.

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 clear verb+resource ('List your connectors') and adds substantive scope detail: it returns both the user's connectors and the catalog of connector kinds with their config/secret schemas. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_integrations, so an agent must infer that connectors (credentials) differ from integrations.

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 implied by the content (you'd call this to see existing connectors and the available kinds before or after create_connector/delete_connector), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. No prerequisite or ordering guidance is given.

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