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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by enumerating live states such as active, authorizing, failed, and disconnected, and by noting that entries include plain explanations of failures.

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 three tight sentences that front-load what is listed and the live-state information, then move to usage guidance and authority. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no repetition or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the important return content: connection states and plain failure explanations. With zero parameters and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is complete enough for an agent to call 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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not waste space on nonexistent inputs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the outside systems connected to the organization, with examples such as Slack, Gmail, Linear, and spreadsheets. It also names the live connection states and explicitly distinguishes itself as the source of truth rather than something inferred from available tools.

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 gives clear usage contexts: asking what is connected, why a connection is not working, or what can currently be reached. It also provides a strong exclusion by saying not to infer connections from which tools are available, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool search_integrations as an alternative.

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