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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it filters to disconnected accounts and returns an empty list when healthy, which clarifies the tool's effect and output semantics.

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 sentences of purposeful prose. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the empty-list behavior, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it states what is listed, why, and what an empty result means. No schema or output details are needed to select or invoke this tool 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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a solid score; the description also clarifies what the returned list represents.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's connected accounts that currently need re-authentication (status disconnected)'. It clearly distinguishes this from broader account tools like list_connected_accounts and account_connection_status by focusing on the re-authentication need.

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 clear context: use it proactively to offer reconnection before a request fails. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is well implied by the 'proactively offer to reconnect' framing.

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