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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description usefully adds what is actually returned: the user's added connectors with status, plus a directory of addable ones with `steps` and `page_url`. It does not mention pagination or result-size behavior, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition, then usage, then the parameter, then the next action — a sensible order with no true filler sentences. The enumeration of example services (Notion, GitHub, Stripe, Linear, Figma, Calendly, Zapier) is slightly longer than needed but does aid recognition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does: added connectors with status, directory entries with `steps` and `page_url`. Combined with usage triggers and the follow-up tool, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `query` parameter is already documented in the schema as "A name or what it is for". The description's "Pass `query` to narrow by name or purpose" largely restates that, adding only the framing of narrowing a list rather than a genuine semantic detail.

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 connectors") and immediately defines what a connector is: outside services whose tools join the chat over MCP, with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from the near-name siblings list_integrations and add_connector without the agent needing to open 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: "Call it when someone asks about a service list_integrations does not have, or what tools they could add." It also names the follow-on action (add_connector to start connecting) and the fallback for services in neither list (custom_server_url), covering when, when-not, and alternatives.

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