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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says 'List' and 'safe', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, what the output format is, or what 'safe' means. It also doesn't clarify whether any side effects or permission checks apply. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. For a parameterless tool, this level of brevity is appropriate and efficient, with no waste.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'safe' means, what 'health' and 'operation policy fields' encompass, or what the response will contain. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or output from this description alone, which is a notable gap for a list operation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not expected to compensate for missing schema documentation when there are no parameters.

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 states a clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('safe Google connection health and operation policy fields'). It distinguishes from siblings like google_ads_connections_list versus google_ads_connection_permissions_set by focusing on listing fields rather than setting permissions. It is not a tautology and is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer when listing connection health and operation policy fields would be appropriate, which is a significant gap.

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