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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a small amount of context by indicating the payload includes app identity plus last-run timestamps. It says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether disconnected apps appear.

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 short clause - tightly scoped and front-loaded with the resource. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and the value detail trails slightly, but there is no waste.

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, the description is the only source for what comes back, and it gives just one field hint (last run). For a simple zero-param list tool that is close to adequate, but pagination, ordering, and the scope of 'connected' are left unstated.

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 schema is trivially complete and the description has no parameter semantics to carry. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource - AI apps connected to this account - and adds a detail about content (last run time), so an agent knows it is an inventory read. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_connect_links, list_api_keys, or list_granted_scopes, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the natural counterpart tool (disconnect), and no indication of when another listing tool would be the better choice. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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