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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, yet the description adds real context beyond the annotation: no underlying data request is issued and no cost/quota is consumed. It could go further by noting whether the payload is static metadata or reflects configuration, but the zero-cost claim is the key behavioral fact for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by an enumeration of returned content and the zero-cost guarantee. No filler, no repetition of 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by listing the four categories of content returned. What it does not say is the shape of the response envelope despite mentioning 'the response envelope' as a return item, leaving the agent to discover the structure by calling it.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the prose.

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 ('List') and resource (the connector's capabilities), then enumerates exactly what is returned: tools, contract names plus legacy aliases, response envelope, and data_status values. That is unmistakably distinct from every data-returning sibling such as get_company_snapshot or screen_stocks.

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 closing clause 'Read-only, makes no data request and spends nothing' tells the agent this is a free orientation call, which implicitly makes it the right first step when unsure what is available. It does not, however, state explicit when-not conditions or name a sibling it substitutes for.

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