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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing what is deliberately excluded from results: the inbound webhook secret and outbound GitHub token are NEVER returned. It also explains the security rationale (raw token must not transit MCP) and what hasToken actually signals about sync-back wiring, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource, then row shape, then the secret-exclusion guarantee. Every sentence carries operational meaning. Minor cost: internal shorthand ('Retasc', 'RTSC-189', 'Dash-only') adds noise for an agent without org context.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it covers identity, return fields, security exclusions, and the boundary against creating connectors. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret results 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?

Zero parameters yields the baseline 4. The description compensates usefully by enumerating the shape of each returned row (provider, repo, target project, hasToken, created/revoked timestamps), which is the only place that information exists since there is no output schema.

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 ('List the org's intake connectors') and immediately grounds it with a concrete example ('GitHub Issues → Retasc issues'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_* tools by naming the connector domain, and from revoke_connector by scoping itself to listing.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use this surface: 'Connecting a NEW repo is Dash-only' because it needs a raw GitHub token that must not transit MCP. It also frames scope as 'read + disconnect', implying revoke_connector for the disconnect half. It stops short of naming revoke_connector outright, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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