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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no inputs, inclusion of expired access tokens while a refresh token remains usable, empty client_name when the client row is gone, hostnames-only redirect_hosts, explicit exclusion of token/refresh hashes and client secrets, sort order, and the exact 403 permission_denied and unauthorized failure modes. It is also consistent with the readOnly annotation.

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?

Front-loads the trigger and scope, then compresses the return shape and failure modes into tight sentences with no filler. Given that no output schema exists, the return-shape sentence earns its length.

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 and no parameters, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, full return shape, edge-case semantics, ordering, and both 403 failure modes — everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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 to disambiguate; the description explicitly states 'No inputs,' which is the correct baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 ('see which OAuth apps currently hold access to this account') and names the actual object type (oauth_grant) returned. It is easily distinguished from siblings such as cooper_list_workspaces or cooper_list_owners, and it ties itself to cooper_revoke_oauth_grant by noting the revoke use case.

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 a clear trigger ('when you need to see which OAuth apps currently hold access') and a motivating scenario ('for example before revoking one'), which implicitly points to cooper_revoke_oauth_grant. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the alternative tool by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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