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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating that no secrets are returned, which reassures the agent about the payload's sensitivity, plus the connected/connectionId semantics that govern downstream use.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the sensitive-data note and the usage condition both earn their place. Minor deduction for the language mismatch: the description is in French while the title and the surrounding toolset are in English, which can slow cross-referencing.

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, non-destructive read with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, what is deliberately withheld, and how the results are consumed. It could go slightly further by sketching the returned item shape (provider name, connected flag, connectionId) but nothing essential 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It instead documents the meaning of fields in the response (connected, connectionId), which is a bonus rather than a parameter gap.

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 identifies the resource as Drive/Gmail/OneDrive/Outlook accounts usable in workflows, and the name supplies the 'list' verb. However, it never states the purpose in an explicit sentence and does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as list_connections, describe_connections, or configure_connection, so an agent must infer which 'connections' listing applies.

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?

It gives a concrete downstream condition: connected=true and a connectionId are required for an app trigger or app_action step, which tells the agent when this tool is needed in a workflow-building sequence. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., the generic connections tools) or excluding use cases.

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