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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond those annotations: it discloses the owner-only authorization requirement and the nature of the returned records (scoped, revocable credentials).

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the resource and return fields front-loaded and the access constraint last. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 correctly names the returned fields (label, agent type, scopes, status) and the access rule. For a zero-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient; only pagination or result-size behavior is unaddressed, and with no parameters there is likely none.

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 there is no parameter meaning for the description to explain. This is the 0-parameter baseline.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'List the workspace's DenkOps connection tokens', and then defines that resource as 'scoped, revocable agent/CLI credentials' with the fields label, agent type, scopes and status. This lets an agent understand what a connection is without opening other tools. It doesn't name a sibling to contrast with list_connector_accounts, so it stops short of 5.

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?

The description gives the permission constraint 'Workspace owners only', which implicitly tells the agent when this call will succeed. It doesn't say when to use this rather than a sibling such as get_connection_activity or list_connector_accounts, and it states no exclusions, so the guidance is implied.

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