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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'verified to work' trust qualifier, but says nothing about return format, ordering, or how the assistant argument affects results.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which is slightly less front-loaded than it could be.

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 simple read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description conveys enough to call the tool correctly. It could note what the returned app list looks like, but that is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single 'ai' parameter already documented as 'ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or Grok'. The description adds no further semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (apps verified to work with an AI assistant), making it clear this returns a list of connectable apps. However, it is a noun fragment with no explicit verb and gives no differentiation from the sibling list_connectors, which sounds like it does something similar.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among siblings (get_connection_steps, list_connectors, recently_updated). Usage is only loosely implied by the title.

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