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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of each returned entry — connected status, whether the user can connect it on the website under Security settings, and whether disconnection is blocked as the last sign-in method — which is genuinely useful pre-call context.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action. The trailing clause stacks three per-item attributes and the 'Security section of their account settings' aside, which makes it slightly hard to parse on first read, but nothing is redundant.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so adequately by naming the three per-provider flags. It stops short of describing ordering or the top-level envelope, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered listing with no scoping arguments.

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 every way into the user's Caly account') and enumerates the concrete provider values (google, apple, password, azure-ad, saml), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_granted_scopes or list_calendar_connections.

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 surfacing whether disconnect_sign_in_method is allowed or blocked, it hints that this is the pre-flight check before disconnecting, but it never says 'call this before disconnect_sign_in_method' or states when not to use it. No alternatives are named beyond the indirect reference to the disconnect sibling.

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