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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the detail that results are 'redacted', which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it could arguably be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description lacks essential context: no parameter semantics, no usage guidance, and no explanation of what 'redacted' entails. For a tool with three parameters and a large sibling set, this is incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of any parameters (limit, cursor, channel). There is no explanation of what each parameter controls, how cursor pagination works, or valid channel values. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('platform connections'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connections_check_intent and connections_create_intent. However, it doesn't specify what 'platform connections' refers to (e.g., linked ad accounts, pages), leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 prerequisites, conditions for selection, or contrast with similar listing tools like accounts_list_linked_accounts or assets_list_pages. An agent has no basis to decide this is the right list operation.

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