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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: an installation whose GitHub call failed carries an error and an empty list, and an empty overall result means the App isn't connected. It stops short of describing pagination or auth requirements for the call itself.

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 dense sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (scope, workflow hook, credential field, empty/error semantics), with the resource description front-loaded. It is information-rich rather than padded, though it reads slightly as a data dump of return fields.

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 return-value burden and does so: it explains installations, the repositories each can reach, pat_configured, and the error-plus-empty-list failure shape. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'feedback' parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description never mentions that parameter at all (its installation_id guidance is aimed at the sibling add_repository), so it adds no meaning about this tool's own input.

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 states a specific verb and resource (GitHub App installations connected to the workspace) plus the scope of what each can reach, including private repositories. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_repository by naming the exact workflow relationship (supplying installation_id for a private repo), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly says when to call it ('Use before add_repository for a private repository') and what the credential means ('pat_configured says whether a workspace PAT exists as the fallback credential'). It even resolves the empty-result case by routing the agent to the dashboard, leaving nothing to inference.

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