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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description nevertheless adds meaningful context beyond them: the secret-handling guarantee ("Never returns credentials") and the shape of what it surfaces (per-project usage and dependency counts), which goes past what the annotations convey.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by the security guarantee and the field reference. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

With an output schema present, return formatting need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read tool the definition is nearly complete; only explicit routing to sibling tools is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter burden and the baseline is 4 by rule. The mention of `label` describes a returned field, not an input, so it adds no parameter meaning but no harm either.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: it enumerates the workspace's reusable provider accounts and adds what is returned (which one the project uses, dependency counts). It does not differentiate itself from adjacent read/selection tools like fillo_get_integration or fillo_select_connection, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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?

Usage is only implied. The trailing note that `label` is what a removal must confirm with subtly routes the agent toward fillo_remove_connection_account, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as fillo_get_integration or fillo_disconnect_integration.

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