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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are account-level app grants rather than agent tools, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether revoked apps appear — minor gaps given the rich annotations and output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation immediately following. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description plus structured data give the agent everything needed to invoke it. The only material omission is the relationship to revoke_authorized_app, which would help in a revoke-after-list workflow.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain input semantics, and it correctly avoids inventing filter options that do not exist.

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+resource ("List applications authorized to access this account") so the agent knows exactly what is returned. The second sentence attempts to distinguish it from the connector family, but the phrasing "external tools used by voice agents" is loose enough that it only partly disambiguates from siblings like list_connectors.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb (read-only inventory of account-level app authorizations), and the contrast sentence hints at when to prefer this over connector tools. However, it never names an alternative tool explicitly or states a when-not condition, and it does not mention that revoke_authorized_app is the paired mutation.

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