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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the results are limited to 'locally approved' connections, scoped to a specific account/profile, and the zero-result case requires human pairing before anything can proceed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by how to use it and the failure mode. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema (so return shape is documented elsewhere) and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, mandatory usage pattern, and empty-result handling.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify or misstate. It correctly implies the account/profile context is implicit rather than passed in.

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 (List) and resource (locally approved, currently connected Ceraph companions and catalog hashes), scoped to account and profile. An agent can tell it is a discovery/listing tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling remote_status, which could plausibly overlap.

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 clear imperative context: 'Choose a connection explicitly for every tool operation,' making this a prerequisite/entry-point tool, and flags the empty-state path ('the human must pair locally first'). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to an alternative sibling.

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