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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: 'Staff see only their own,' meaning results are role-scoped, which the agent cannot learn from the schema or annotations.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant qualifier (permission scoping). No filler, though the list-of-fields clause borders on return-value detail better placed elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields is valuable and covered here, and the access-scoping note closes the biggest unknown. It still leaves open ordering/pagination and whether revoked or disconnected apps appear in the list.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field enumeration it does provide is really a return-value hint rather than parameter semantics.

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?

It clearly states the resource (AI apps connected to this business) and enumerates the attributes surfaced: which app, who connected it, when, and last use. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the obvious sibling disconnect_app, but its listing intent is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to disconnect_app as the management counterpart. The agent must infer that this is a read-only inventory call from the name alone.

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