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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it reports that results carry a name and last-use value, and that a 'current' marker identifies the caller's own client — non-obvious output semantics for an otherwise opaque read.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the key scoping qualifier (OAuth clients and API tokens) is front-loaded. Slightly cramped grammar around 'with its name and last use,' but nothing is wasted.

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 no parameters, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by naming the fields returned and the 'current' flag. No pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior is stated, but those are minor for a zero-arg enumeration tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still earns its keep by mentioning clientId in the context of revoke_agent, telling the agent what field from this listing is actionable elsewhere.

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 resource precisely: every agent client with access to the owner's account, explicitly scoped to OAuth clients and API tokens, with the returned fields named. An agent can distinguish this from generic list_* siblings like list_connections, though the description never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it should call this to enumerate connected clients. The one explicit routing statement ('Pass a clientId to revoke_agent') points at a follow-up tool rather than explaining when to use this one versus siblings, and no exclusions are given.

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