List connected OAuth applications (own grants unless administrator)

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 fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — the result set is scoped to the caller's own grants unless the caller is an administrator — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what fields are exposed.

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 short sentence with the resource up front and the scoping caveat in parentheses — zero waste and well front-loaded. It is essentially a restatement of the title, so it is concise but adds little new phrasing.

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 description covers what is listed and whose grants are visible, which is close to sufficient. It omits any indication of what a grant record contains (client name, scopes, dates) and whether results are paginated, so it falls just short of fully self-sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The scope note correctly implies the result set varies by caller role rather than by an input argument.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: call this to enumerate connected OAuth applications. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., api_tokens_list for API tokens), and no prerequisites, so the agent must infer context.

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