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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds scope (user's own OAuth-signed-in clients only) and that connection timestamps are returned, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no clients are connected.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource and the returned field are both stated, and nothing is redundant with 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (client identities plus connection timestamps) and the implicit user scope. Minor gaps remain around ordering or empty-result behavior, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by implying no filtering arguments are needed — the listing is implicitly scoped to the authenticated user's OAuth clients.

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 MCP clients the user signed in to Sendocado with OAuth') plus the returned attribute ('when each was connected'). It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling disconnect_connected_app, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 only implied by the verb 'List' — an agent can infer this is the read path for OAuth-connected clients, with disconnect_connected_app as the mutating counterpart. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites are stated.

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