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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add value beyond them by specifying the payload shape ('names and status only'), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination or ordering, which is a small remaining gap given the limit parameter.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the resource-and-return-shape statement is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple read-only list tool with three optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, return shape, and a motivating use case. Only minor operational details such as pagination behavior are absent, and those are arguably inferable from the limit parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so limit, query, and connected_only are already fully documented in the schema with examples and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names both resources it returns — the apps available to the account and the accounts connected to each — which is more specific than the title alone. It stops short of differentiating from siblings such as connect_app or list_agent_tools, so an agent gets the 'what' but not the 'how it differs'.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger: check a workflow's apps are connected before running it. That is real when-to-use guidance. It omits when-not-to-use and does not name an alternative for viewing a single connection or for making a connection.

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