List connectors

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

Annotations only cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: stale permission sets baked in at consent time, refusals that no retry or wait can fix, and the remedy path. This is exactly the kind of causal context an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the staleness flag, then the fix. Every sentence carries information, but the all-caps emphasis on the staleness clause and the trailing 'Read-only, free' (partly redundant with readOnlyHint) make it slightly longer and shoutier than needed.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies both the returned fields and the operational context (diagnostic use, remediation) an agent needs to act correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description also implicitly characterizes the output shape (provider/status/label plus available providers), which compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and enumerates the returned fields (provider, status, connected account label) plus the availability view of connectable providers. It differs from most siblings, but never distinguishes itself from the very similar 'list_connector_accounts'/'set_connector_accounts' siblings, so an agent can't fully resolve the pair from the text alone.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Check this FIRST when a connected provider starts refusing things') and routes to alternatives by condition: browser reconnect via Workspace ▸ Connectors versus connect_connector for paste-a-key accounts. Both the trigger and the escape hatch are named.

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