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 a genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in structured data: the OAuth security:read scope requirement, which determines whether the call can succeed at all.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the auth prerequisite appended as a compact qualifying clause. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description plus structure is nearly complete. It stops just short of naming the complementary sibling (revoke_connected_app) or noting that results reflect the caller's own account only.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter behavior is misrepresented.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (apps with active access to your account) and adds the payload of interest (their permissions). It implicitly contrasts with the revoke_connected_app sibling by describing a read of existing grants, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires OAuth security:read', which tells the agent what credential is needed but not when to prefer this tool over others or what conditions exclude it. The zero-parameter, read-only nature makes the missing when-to-use framing a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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