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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world scope. The description adds useful context beyond that by noting the administrator authority requirement and clarifying that results do not expose secrets or imply connector verification.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences. It front-loads the core action and follows with a useful scope caveat, with no wasted text.

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?

The tool has an output schema and fully described input schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It adds relevant auth and scope caveats, though it could say slightly more about pagination expectations.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters, including q, limit, and cursor semantics. The description only implies pagination through the verb 'Page' and adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it pages independent configured account roots. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as connections_list or connections_catalog.

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 phrase 'using current administrator authority' implies an admin-only context, and the exclusion of secrets and verified connector availability narrows expectations. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than connections_list, connections_catalog, or connections_graph.

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