list_authorized_apps

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return format (JSON with total_items and apps array) and details about the app fields (id, name, description, users). This is useful context beyond annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or auth scopes.

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?

Three concise paragraphs: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. Front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the return format and usage context, and the annotations provide safety profile. However, the complete omission of the 'account' parameter means the tool is not fully self-explanatory. Given the low complexity and good output schema description, the gap is moderate.

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 has an optional parameter 'account' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, leaving its purpose and usage completely undocumented. This is a significant gap.

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 it lists OAuth-authorized apps for the Mailchimp account. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_authorized_app' by noting that tool retrieves full details of a single app.

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 says 'Use this to audit which third-party apps are connected and discover their IDs' and directs to the alternative 'get_authorized_app' for full record of a single app. Provides clear when-to-use and alternative.

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