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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context beyond that: plan gating, intended sequencing before create_automation_draft, and the returned identifiers. It does not describe pagination or the full response shape, but it meaningfully supplements the annotation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the plan requirement, followed by the resource and sequencing guidance. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key operational context: plan requirement, what is returned at a high level, and when to call it. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response shape, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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 clearly identifies the resource: connected apps such as Shopify and WooCommerce, including their app_key and available event_key triggers. It does not explicitly start with a verb like 'List', but the tool name and content make the listing purpose clear and distinguish it from sibling create_automation_draft.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite ('Requires an Advance plan key') and a sequencing rule ('call before create_automation_draft'). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the relevant usage context is clear.

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