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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description then adds auth-context that annotations cannot convey: these are catalog records, not authenticated external accounts, which prevents the agent from misinterpreting the results. It says nothing about pagination behavior for the cursor param, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the invocation trigger, and no wasted filler. It is appropriately sized for a list tool, though the phrasing 'wants named services... and which workflow maps mention them' is slightly convoluted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The meaningful gap is pagination and filter semantics: a four-parameter paginated list tool with cursor and query left undefined is under-described for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for all four parameters, yet it explains none of them. limit, query, and cursor are entirely undocumented, and workflowId is only indirectly gestured at by 'which workflow maps mention them,' which describes output rather than the filter.

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 identifies a clear resource (named services in the Revensi connector catalog) and even the cross-reference returned (which workflow maps mention them). However it never states an explicit verb like 'list', and it does not distinguish this from siblings such as list_resources or list_workflows, so it falls short of a 5.

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 opening clause 'Use this when the user wants...' gives a concrete trigger condition for invocation, which is better than implied usage. It names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., add_connector/remove_connector, or when to prefer list_workflows), so it stops short of the explicit when-not guidance required for a 5.

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