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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: tenant-wide scope, that only active connectors are returned, and the X-License-Key authentication requirement. The "Read-only operation" sentence is redundant with the annotation but not harmful; it stops short of describing ordering or pagination behavior.

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 the resource definition, followed by the two operational facts an agent needs. Nothing extraneous beyond the mildly redundant read-only restatement.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the schema has no parameters to document. The description covers what is listed, the scope, safety profile, and auth requirement — everything needed to invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly conveys that the only scoping is implicit (tenant and active status), matching the parameterless 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?

Specific verb ("Lists") plus a precisely scoped resource ("active cloud changefeed connectors... registered for the tenant"), with example connector types enumerated. It clearly separates itself from siblings like icx_register_connector and icx_get_connector_document, which operate on single connectors rather than enumerating them.

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 implies the use case (discovering which connectors exist for the tenant) and narrows scope to "active" connectors, but never states when to prefer this over icx_inspect_connector_facts or icx_get_connector_document, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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