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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety framing is covered. The description still adds substantive context beyond them: the result set is filtered to connections explicitly enabled for AI reading, and credentials are never collected in chat — behavior an agent could otherwise get wrong by attempting a sign-in flow.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then the consent location, then the exclusion. The security reassurance about passwords and codes is defensible because it prevents a wrong action, though the opening phrase partly restates the title.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, this covers what is returned, what is excluded, and where the user-side consent happens. It doesn't indicate what a connection record contains or what an empty result means, but neither is essential to calling it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the description has nothing to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List this user's saved website connections') and narrows scope to those 'explicitly enabled for AI reading'. The distinction from the sibling read_with_account (which presumably performs the reading) is left implicit, so an agent must infer the relationship rather than being told it.

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 a clear when-not ('Does not connect accounts or change permissions') and routes the sign-in/consent step to manage_url in Puley. It stops short of naming a sibling to call instead when the agent's real goal is reading content through one of these connections.

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