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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (names plus OpenGraph icons) and the account-scoping behavior, which is useful. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, permission/auth requirements, or result size/limits beyond what the schema implies.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the analogy trailing as supporting color. No wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description correctly supplements it with the human-readable field list. For a simple read-only list tool this is nearly sufficient; only auth/permission context 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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. "connectées à ce compte" weakly implies auth_token selects the account, but no meaning, format, or sourcing for auth_token is given. The parameter is self-evident by name, keeping this at the baseline rather than below it.

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 ("Liste") and resource ("apps clientes MCP connectées à ce compte"), plus the returned fields (nom + icône OpenGraph). The GitHub/Shopify analogy makes the concept immediately recognizable. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast a sibling (e.g. mcp_remove_connected_app), so it stops short of a 5.

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 analogy to GitHub 'Authorized OAuth Apps' implies the browsing/auditing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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