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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining that team-shared and cross-team granted instances appear conditionally based on the org-level Connections sharing setting.

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 sentences with no filler: the first gives verb and resource, the second adds scope and sharing behavior, and the third explains the filter parameter. It is tightly structured and front-loaded.

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 endpoint, the description adequately covers purpose, team scope, sharing conditions, and filtering. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to explain return values in depth when pagination and team_id details are already expressed in the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the `type` parameter by stating it filters by integration type, but it leaves `limit` and `offset` to their schema defaults and relies on the schema's existing full explanation of `team_id`. This is only partial compensation.

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 states the action and resource: "List the authenticated user's connections (connected integration instances) for the current team," and adds useful scope nuance about team-shared and granted instances. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like getConnection or listIntegrations, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear context: the call is scoped to the current team, includes shared instances only when the org-level sharing setting is on, and supports filtering by integration type. It does not provide explicit exclusions or direct agents to alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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