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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-openWorld behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses that team-shared and cross-team-granted instances appear only when the org-level Connections sharing setting is on, and it clarifies the `type` filter semantics.

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 two sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The first sentence is somewhat long but every clause carries useful scoping information, and the second sentence cleanly resolves a likely parameter ambiguity.

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 list tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the key ambiguities: scope (current team), inclusion rules (team-shared, cross-team grants), and the meaning of `type`. It does not describe pagination behavior or ordering, but those are largely inferable from schema defaults and bounds.

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 only 25%, with only `team_id` documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for the ambiguous `type` parameter ('filters by integration type, not native OAuth provider key'), but it does not compensate for the undocumented `limit` and `offset` parameters beyond what their schema bounds and defaults imply.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('authenticated user's connections (connected integration instances)') scoped to 'the current team.' It clearly distinguishes connections from integrations by clarifying they are 'connected integration instances,' but it does not explicitly name or compare against sibling list tools such as listIntegrations.

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?

The description explains what is included (team-shared instances, cross-team grants) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like listIntegrations or listCredentials. There are no when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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