list_authorized_apps

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds 'Read-only, safe to retry' and discloses rate limits and authentication method. No contradictions.

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 concise (about 6 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage, limitations, parameter, return format. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list with one optional parameter, read-only), the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and return structure (via Returns section). Output schema exists, so return details are complete.

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 single parameter 'account' is explained in detail: it's optional, references naming convention (MAILCHIMP_API_KEY_<NAME>), provides an example, and cross-references list_accounts. Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates.

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 applications with OAuth access to the Mailchimp account, using a specific verb 'list' and resource 'authorized apps'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_authorized_app (single record) and other list functions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('audit which third-party apps are connected and discover their IDs'), provides an alternative ('Use get_authorized_app for full record of a single app'), and includes authentication (API key) and rate limiting (Max 10 concurrent requests) guidance.

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