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

Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral scope beyond that: it covers all integration types, reports reusable accounts on other companies, includes FreedomOS-native doors, and explicitly handles the missing-service case.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope first, then when-to-use, then a practical fallback instruction. The wording is dense but not padded, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description conveys what the response will cover: connected integrations, powered tools, reusable accounts, and native doors. A more explicit statement about response shape or pagination would be needed for a perfect score, but the current coverage is sufficient for a read-only listing tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'and the tools each one powers' aligns with the include_tools parameter, but it does not add parameter-level detail 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List ALL connected external integrations' and enumerates exact categories (MCP servers, OAuth accounts, Xero, Stripe). It clearly distinguishes itself from individual service listing siblings by emphasizing cross-integration scope and 'the tools each one powers'.

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 explicit trigger conditions: 'Use when asked what is connected or which tools an integration powers.' It also provides a clear alternative for the not-connected case: 'call request_connector rather than stopping at not-connected.'

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