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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by explicitly ruling out side effects (cannot connect new apps or act in them), which prevents the agent from over-anticipating capabilities. It adds a little beyond annotations without going very deep.

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, zero waste, with the usage trigger front-loaded before the capability caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero parameters, a full output schema covering return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and call the tool correctly. Nothing material 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level guidance is needed or expected.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('list connected apps') and scopes it to third-party apps connected to the Xenition account, with concrete examples (Gmail, Slack, Notion). It stops short of differentiating itself from ambiguous siblings such as app_status or find_tools, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks which third-party apps are connected') and an explicit negative constraint ('it cannot connect new apps or act in them'), steering the agent away from misuse. Both the when-to-use and when-not are stated outright.

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