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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that. It discloses the shape of the response (grouping by service), per-provider fields (granted_services, missing_services, workspace, workspace_id), the needs_reconnect flag for revoked access, and that permission failures surface here with a reconnection path at /dashboard/connections.

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?

Purpose and the usage rule are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct response field. Slightly dense at roughly 120 words for a zero-parameter read, and the phrase "A call that fails for a missing permission is explained here" is vague about where that explanation appears.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so field by field for both Google Workspace and Notion accounts. Combined with the annotation covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add cross-tool semantics by explaining that a workspace name or id may serve as the 'account' value elsewhere, but it does not describe any parameter of this tool itself.

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 ("List the user's connected accounts") plus a scope qualifier ("grouped by service"). No sibling tool in the list does account discovery, and the description makes that role unmistakable by tying the output to the 'account' parameter used elsewhere.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule: "Use this to discover which accounts are available before passing the 'account' parameter to other tools." It goes further and tells the agent what value to pass when an email maps to multiple Notion workspaces (workspace name or id instead of email), resolving the most likely misuse.

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