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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result surfaces sync state and per-source item counts, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing read cost, ordering, or how unsynced or errored sources appear, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the use case, followed by a one-line statement of what it returns and a one-line routing rule to a sibling. No restated name or filler, and each sentence carries distinct 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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers the trigger conditions, the exclusion, the routing alternative, and the shape of what comes back — compensating adequately for the absent output schema. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully self-explanatory. Baseline applies with no compensating information needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists connected sources') plus the exact attributes returned ('sync status and item counts'), and explicitly separates itself from search_knowledge by stating it is not for finding content. An agent can distinguish it from the other list_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the triggering user intents directly ('asks which Notion pages or Google Drive folders are connected, whether they have synced, or how many items each holds'), then adds an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it to find content') and names the correct alternative, search_knowledge. This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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