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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool only returns authorized integrations and guarantees that unlisted tools are unreachable, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose and examples are front-loaded, and the second sentence gives essential routing guidance. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description conveys enough: what will be shown, when to call it, and why it matters. It could be marginally more explicit about the exact shape of the return value, but overall the essential context is present.

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%: the 'client' parameter has a description, but 'client_id' does not, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain whether one or both parameters are expected, how they relate to each other, or what happens if neither is supplied. The description fails to compensate for the incomplete schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show the external systems a client workspace has connected' and explicitly names examples (Slack, Linear, GitHub, Notion, Jira, Asana). It also differentiates itself from call_integration by framing this as the prerequisite listing tool, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this before call_integration so you act in a system the client has actually authorized.' It also states a hard constraint — 'you can never reach a tool that is not listed here' — which tells the agent when this tool is required before other actions.

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