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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. The valuable addition is the capability boundary — it cannot connect new apps or act in them — which tells the agent what this tool will never do, beyond what the annotations state.

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, no waste: the usage trigger is front-loaded and the safety/capability note follows. 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. Purpose, trigger, and the read-only/no-connect boundary together cover everything an agent needs to select and call this tool 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 no-param tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter-like filtering behavior.

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+resource ('which third-party apps ... are connected to their Xenition account') and illustrates it with concrete examples (Gmail, Slack, Notion). An agent can distinguish this read-only inventory call from neighboring tools like app_status or list_agents without opening the 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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks which third-party apps are connected') and an explicit exclusion ('cannot connect new apps or act in them'). It does not name an alternative sibling tool for the connection-management case, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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