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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: exactly what is surfaced (account, sending tool per integration, channel/webhook counts) and the constraint that connecting requires a browser sign-in in Wavelength settings. It omits return formatting details, but no output schema exists to lean on.

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 what is listed before the auxiliary sign-in note. Every clause carries information, though the trailing sentence about browser sign-in is slightly tangential for a read-only listing call.

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 is nearly self-sufficient: it enumerates the integrations and the per-entry fields an agent should expect. It could be fuller on whether counts are scoped per-user or per-workspace, but nothing required for a correct invocation is absent.

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, and the schema is empty as expected. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Show which outside apps the user has connected') and enumerates the concrete contents returned: connected account, per-app sending tool, chat channel and webhook counts. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like crm_status or list_channels without opening any 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?

Usage is only implied. The description says connecting an app needs a browser sign-in and that this tool tells the user where to connect it, which hints at a discovery/status use case, but it never states when to use this versus list_channels, crm_status, or the find_* target tools, and gives no exclusions.

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