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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in structured data: secrets are omitted from the output, which matters for an agent deciding whether credentials are retrievable. It does not mention the fixed provider set being the complete universe or anything about pagination/format.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the important qualifier ('sans secrets') lands before any trailing detail. It is slightly clipped, reading more like a subtitle than a front-loaded statement of action, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what data is exposed and what is withheld, which is the main risk an agent needs to know. It is however silent on the relationship to the closely named sibling describe_connections and on the shape of the returned per-provider entries, leaving a real gap for a connection-management workflow.

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 baseline is 4; the schema is empty and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Nothing in the text adds or misstates parameter meaning.

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 names the concrete resources whose state and settings are returned (SMTP, Stripe, Twilio, Google Sheets) and adds a scope qualifier ('paramètres publics ... sans secrets'), so an agent knows this is a read of connection configuration. It stops short of a clean verb+resource formulation ('list connections') and does not differentiate itself from the sibling describe_connections.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus configure_connection, describe_connections, remove_connection, or list_workflow_app_connections. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read-only enumeration step, and nothing tells it what to do instead when it needs write or inspection operations.

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