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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a safe idempotent read. The description adds modal detail (summary vs detail, that detail exposes every tool the connector exposes), but says nothing about return format or pagination for a list operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameter guidance, in three tight sentences with no filler. The density is high but every clause about slug, type, and include_available earns its place.

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 full schema coverage and strong annotations, and no output schema to explain, the description covers the relevant modes and modifiers an agent needs. It omits mention of the context scope param and any return-shape hints, but these are minor given the structured fields.

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 all four parameters (slug, type, context, include_available) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description largely restates that coverage, adding only marginal value such as noting the detail view lists every exposed tool.

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 verb (List) and resource (connected accounts and MCP servers), and explicitly distinguishes its two modes: summary listing versus detail for one connector. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like connector_add, connector_remove, and connector_permissions without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly explains how to select behavior: pass slug for detail, type to filter, include_available to broaden scope. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks (e.g. permissions vs listing), so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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