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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the permission-staleness behavior: a provider writes its granted permission set into the token at consent time, so connections authorized before a permission was approved will never carry it, and calls will be refused regardless of retries. It also states 'Read-only, free,' reinforcing the annotation and adding cost info. This adds significant diagnostic value beyond the structured metadata.

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 verbose but well-structured. It front-loads the main listing function and available providers, then introduces the important permission-flag behavior and troubleshooting guidance. While the permission explanation is detailed, it is essential for the tool's use case and earns its place. The structure (main function, then caveat, then fix) is logical and not repetitive.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers what is listed (provider, status, label), that available providers are included, and the crucial stale-permission detection, including the fix. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose or how the results should be interpreted, making it fully self-contained for an agent.

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 the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for 0-param tools. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, but it appropriately focuses on the tool's output and behavior. It doesn't add anything about parameters because there are none, which is correct.

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 tool's function: listing third-party accounts connected to the workspace, including provider, status, and label, plus which providers are available. It also adds a specific diagnostic feature—flagging out-of-date permissions—which distinguishes it from generic list tools and sets it apart from siblings like list_connector_accounts by covering both connected accounts and available providers.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Check this FIRST when a connected provider starts refusing things.' This suggests when to use the tool in a troubleshooting workflow. It also directs the user to the browser-based fix (Workspace ▸ Connectors). It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the context makes its role clear among the many list_* siblings.

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