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

Annotations are mostly uninformative here (readOnlyHint=false on what is clearly a listing tool), so the description carries real weight: it discloses the scope (this workspace only), the security-relevant behavior that cookies are never returned, and the shape of the payload. It does not explain pagination, result limits, or why a listing operation is flagged non-read-only, leaving a small gap.

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 compact sentence with the scoping constraint and the anti-confusion clause front-loaded, plus a terse field list that earns its place because there is no output schema. Minor awkwardness from the colon-separated field list, but no wasted prose.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool the description covers identity, scope, and return fields, which is close to sufficient. It omits pagination/volume behavior, the meaning of the 'status' values, and any explanation for the non-read-only annotation, so an agent could still be surprised by call behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (platform slug, organizationId) are already documented in the schema; the description adds no further meaning such as slug format, whether the filters combine, or what happens when organizationId is omitted. Baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource precisely — platform logins (cookies) attached to the workspace — and explicitly excludes AI apps, which is the key disambiguation against connection/app listing siblings. The verb 'list' is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description, but the scope and returned fields (platform, account, status, last check) are concrete.

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: 'not AI apps' steers the agent away from other connection-type listings, but no sibling tool (e.g. list_connections, list_user_apis) is named as the alternative, and there is no statement of when this tool should be preferred or when it is unnecessary. An agent can infer the context but is not explicitly routed.

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