xero_list_feed_connections

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds value with behavioral specifics: 'effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it' and 'approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write', plus the routing-only-through-governed-authority constraint. These go beyond what annotations and schema convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and reasonably compact. It front-loads the operation identity, then states the key routing constraint, followed by a neat bullet-style Args list. Each parameter gets one line with no excessive prose. Slight redundancy exists in naming the operation twice ('list_feed_connections' and 'xero.list_feed_connections'), but it is not wasteful.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers routing constraints, required effect, and parameter purposes. However, it leaves gaps: it does not explicitly describe what information is returned (though an output schema exists), does not explain the JSON structure of the 'arguments' parameter, and gives no guidance on how this tool fits among the many Xero list/create/delete siblings. The routing phrase is jargon-heavy and could confuse an agent without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. Each parameter is given at least a short semantic gloss: 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', 'project_id: Authenticated Project UUID', 'connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias', etc. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though some definitions like 'Exact project correlation reference' remain moderately vague.

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 identifies the tool as 'Xero connector operation `list_feed_connections` (platform tool `xero.list_feed_connections`)', which clearly conveys a list/read operation on feed connections. The 'list' prefix in the operation name and the overall format distinguish it from create/delete feed connection siblings, though the description does not explicitly state 'lists feed connections' as a standalone sentence.

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?

It provides a meaningful usage constraint: 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority', which signals prerequisites about project/account routing. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_create_feed_connection or xero_delete_feed_connection, nor does it state any when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is mostly implied by the tool name and operation type.

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