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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the listing is the authoritative scope for downstream integration tools, and gateway-backed systems (Jira, Asana) are included. It omits pagination/return-shape details, but these are secondary.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the scope caveat and a reference URL. The parenthetical tool list is slightly long but earns its place by grounding what 'external systems' means.

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 and read-only annotations, the description carries most of the load and does it well for purpose and scoping. The remaining gap is the absence of any hint about the listing's shape or the two client selector parameters.

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 coverage is only 50% – client is documented in the schema but client_id has no description. The tool description says nothing about either parameter, so the undocumented client_id must be inferred from its name and the sibling client parameter.

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 (Show/list) and resource (external systems connected to a client workspace), and enumerates concrete examples (Slack, Linear, GitHub, Notion, gateway-backed Jira/Asana). It also disambiguates from siblings by naming read_integration and write_integration as the tools this listing gates.

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?

The sentence 'read_integration and write_integration can only reach systems listed here' effectively tells the agent when this call is a prerequisite, which is clear contextual routing. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not rule, but the dependency relationship is unambiguous.

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