list_connections

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already discloses the safe read-only nature. The description adds the specific data source types and the need for a project_id, but does not mention pagination, return format, or any rate-limit/auth behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes a clear usage prerequisite. Every sentence adds value; there is no verbosity or redundant 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (a read-only listing operation), the description provides the core purpose, necessary prerequisite, and example scope. The missing explanation of the config parameter is a minor gap, but the essential use case is well covered, especially with annotations confirming read-only behavior.

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 input schema provides 2 parameters, but their schema descriptions are empty. The tool description explains project_id meaningfully ('The project UUID from list_projects()'), which helps. However, the optional config parameter is not explained at all, leaving a gap for a parameter that may affect behavior.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List connected data sources') and a resource scope ('for a project'), with concrete examples (GSC, GA4, Google Ads). This unambiguously distinguishes it from other list-type tools in the sibling set, such as list_projects or list_folders.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite and sequence: 'Call list_projects() first to get your project_id.' This is a strong usage guideline. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context of requiring a project_id implies its primary use case.

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