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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond these by detailing the return content (configured/not configured, names, dates, never secrets). This aligns with and expands on the annotations. No contradictions. Minor gap: does not mention pagination or rate limits, but with zero parameters, this is acceptable.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose. The second clarifies return specifics and exclusions. The third gives usage guidance. No filler or redundancy. Excellent structure.

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 (zero parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, return values, exclusions, and when to use it. The output schema handles return type details, so no further description needed. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because the description adds no parameter info (not needed) but does provide context about the output, which is helpful. No enums or required params to clarify.

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 tool lists outside services connected by the user, including ticket boards, connector credentials, and available connectors. It specifies what is returned (configured/not configured facts, names, dates) and explicitly says it never returns secrets. This distinguishes it from other list tools by its specific subject (integrations).

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 guidance: 'Read this before planning a workflow that reaches an external service, so a step is not written against a credential the user has not registered.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool. It also notes 'Requires authentication,' setting a prerequisite. While no alternatives are named, the unique subject makes this unnecessary.

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