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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned content: connected AI apps, their capabilities, last-call timing, and linked sign-in providers. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or privacy filtering, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary resource and parenthetically adds the most useful return details. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 list tool with rich read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names both categories of returned data and some per-item detail. Minor gaps remain around ordering and whether revoked or expired connections are included, but the core return shape is clear.

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 no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 and resource: list the AI apps connected to the account and the sign-in providers linked to it. It also states what details are included (what each app may do and when it last called). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_api_keys or list_granted_scopes, but the resource scope is clear.

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?

The description says what is returned but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives. With sibling list tools like list_api_keys and list_granted_scopes, an agent could still be unsure which list tool is appropriate for a given request.

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