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

The description implies a read-only listing operation with no side effects, which is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly declare safety, but for a listing tool, this is sufficient. The mention of including tools per integration adds transparency about the output scope.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, scope, and usage well. It doesn't detail return format or errors, but those are typical for listing tools and not critical.

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 both parameters are already described there. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces the purpose of the `include_tools` parameter by stating the tool lists 'the tools each one powers.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('ALL connected external integrations'), and explicitly enumerates types (MCP servers, OAuth accounts, direct integrations). It also mentions 'the tools each one powers,' adding further specificity. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'invoke_integration' and 'search_connector_registry.'

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when user asks about connected services, integrations, or what external tools are available.' While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the guidance is clear and practical.

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