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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond the annotations it discloses the return content (connectors, connected accounts, per-site usage, connect link) and the side effect that a connect link opens the given site, which is useful behavioral 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?

The usage trigger is front-loaded in the first clause and the return shape follows immediately; every sentence earns its place. The 12-item connector enumeration is longer than strictly necessary but is defensible for matching the user's own service vocabulary.

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 output schema, the description usefully carries the return-value burden by describing what each connector entry contains. Safety is covered by annotations and the single param by the schema, leaving no meaningful gap for a read-only list tool.

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% and the single optional site_id is fully documented in the schema itself, including its effect on the list and connect links. The description only echoes 'which the site uses' and adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists each connector') and enumerates the connector set, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not name or differentiate against the overlapping siblings get-connector-overview and use-connector, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user asks which services... is connected to, or wants to add one'), which is unusually actionable. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear context without routing.

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