List connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description explicitly says 'Read-only, free,' aligning with and reinforcing that. Beyond annotations, it discloses a subtle behavioral trait: connections with out-of-date permissions are flagged, explaining why retries or waits cannot help and directing the user to the reconnect path. This adds substantial context not encoded in structured fields.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence serves a purpose: it enumerates the output, explains the permission flag, gives a diagnostic trigger, and indicates the remediation path. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the extra detail is directly useful, not filler. It could be trimmed slightly, but it earns its length.

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 read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It tells the agent exactly what the output includes (provider, status, label, available providers), what the special flag means, when to call it, and how to fix the underlying issue. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no space on parameters and instead focuses on output and behavior, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 exact action (list connected third-party accounts) and the specific resources included (Meta, Google Ads, Google Drive/Sheets/Docs, YouTube, LinkedIn, OneDrive, Slack, etc.), along with the returned fields (provider, status, label) and the additional capability (available providers). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_connector_accounts, even without an explicit comparison.

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 provides a concrete usage trigger: 'Check this FIRST when a connected provider starts refusing things.' It also explains the underlying cause (permission set baked into the token at consent time) and the fix (reconnect in the browser). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the scenario is clear and actionable.

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