List configured Client Hubs

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds important behavioral details beyond that: hub ids are never returned because they are credentials, and each business has its own hub with no combined view. This is consistent with annotations and provides security-relevant context.

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, each serving a purpose: what it lists, scope limitations, and security behavior. The first sentence could be more active ('Lists...') but the structure is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 tool without an output schema, the description covers what is returned (labels, default), what is never returned (hub ids), and scope boundaries. It is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty input schema, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not attempt to.

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 provider hubs configured for this server, by label, and identifies the default. It differentiates from siblings that operate on appointments, invoices, quotes, and work requests, and explicitly excludes returning hub ids.

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 implies usage for retrieving hub configuration but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about no combined view across providers provides a contextual constraint, but no named alternative or explicit 'use this when' is given.

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