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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint, so the description rightly does the heavy lifting: it discloses that connecting is a browser grant the assistant must never claim to have performed, that an absent integration is not offered at all, how 'suggested' is ordered, and what 'steps' means. No behavior is contradicted by the read-only annotation — the tool only returns URLs.

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?

Core purpose and the pre-call trigger are front-loaded, and most sentences carry distinct operational rules. It runs long for a list tool and includes a rhetorical aside ('guessing is how the assistant has told people...'), but the density of actionable content keeps waste low.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (connected, accounts, tools, url, suggested, steps) and what each means. Combined with the sibling routing rule and the browser-grant constraint, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result 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 'key' parameter is fully documented there, so the schema carries the burden. The description never mentions the key-filter capability, so it adds nothing on top; 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?

The opening sentence states a specific resource and scope — what the user has connected and could connect — and the body spells out the exact return shape (connected flags, accounts, unlocked tools, connect/manage URL). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_connectors for non-native services, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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 explicit when-to-call triggers ('BEFORE telling anyone to connect anything', when asked what would help, when asked how to connect) and an explicit exclusion plus alternative ('services that are not native integrations... call list_connectors'). Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left to inference.

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