List connected agents

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful behavioral context by clarifying the connection method (OAuth sign-in), the available timestamps, and that API keys are out of scope. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, provides concrete examples, mentions return fields, and adds a scope exclusion. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 and supportive annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers what is listed, the connection context, the relevant metadata, and what is explicitly excluded. Nothing material is missing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The 100% schema coverage baseline applies vacuously, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 names the exact resource (agents connected to this household via OAuth sign-in), the action (list/get), and the key content (when they connected and last used). It also distinguishes this from API-key-related tools by explicitly saying 'API keys are separate,' making its purpose unambiguous among siblings.

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 makes the use case clear: retrieve OAuth-connected agents for a household. It also provides an implicit exclusion by noting API keys are separate, which helps the agent avoid using this tool for API-key listings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as revoke_connected_agent, but for a read-only list tool the context is sufficient.

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