List connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: stale permission sets baked into tokens at consent time, that refusals are permanent and not retryable, and the browser-based reconnect remedy. This is real diagnostic context an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the list purpose before the diagnostic digression, and each sentence carries information. It is a bit long with heavy ALL-CAPS emphasis, and 'Read-only, free' partly restates the readOnlyHint annotation, but nothing is gratuitous.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return contents and the failure mode it helps diagnose, and it does both. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for zero-param tools applies. The description correctly explains the shape of what is enumerated rather than inventing input semantics.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource and enumerates what is returned: provider, status, account label, plus available-to-connect providers. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_connector_accounts, so an agent choosing between those two must still open both schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Check this FIRST when a connected provider starts refusing things.' It also names the fix workflow and points to connect_connector as the no-browser alternative for paste-a-key accounts, so the routing decision is fully specified.

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