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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only cover safety hints. It enumerates the returned fields (provider, instance URL, project/list names, on-state, last poll time, last error) and, critically, discloses that secrets (client id, client secret, storage name, connector config) are never returned. That security disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and endpoint before the example, then closes with the security and permissions boundaries. The middle sentence is dense with field names but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly, including what is deliberately withheld. Combined with the permission boundary, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-organization scope rather than any filtering.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the organization's connectors'), reinforces it with the underlying endpoint (GET /integrations), and gives a concrete example (the Salesforce Work Order bridge). No sibling tool performs connector listing, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Explicitly states the 'Read tier' and rules out adjacent actions by noting that turning on/off, retargeting, or adding a connector must be done in the portal by an owner/admin 'not by any tool.' It does not name a sibling alternative, but none exists for this resource, so the guidance is clear without exclusions that miss.

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