list_connections

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description consistently describes a listing action. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact fields returned per item and noting the 'id' is meant for use with list_calendars, which helps the agent understand the output shape.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the action, and every sentence adds value—the first defines the scope, the second details the output schema and next-step usage. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, output fields, and how to chain the result to another tool. It is complete given the low complexity and available annotations.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add about parameter meanings. This is the baseline for a parameterless tool, and the description compensates by explaining the output rather than 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 clearly states the tool lists the user's connected calendar accounts, enumerating specific providers (Google, Microsoft, iCloud, ICS, Zoom). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_calendars by focusing on connection-level metadata rather than calendar-level data.

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 clear usage context by stating the returned items and explicitly instructing to use the 'id' with list_calendars. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_all_calendars, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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