List Git installations

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds significant value by explaining the default active-status filter, the meaning of an empty list, the need to check suspended/pending statuses, and the manual setup path in hPanel. This goes well beyond the structured annotation data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives useful interpretive and downstream context. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, especially the detailed hPanel navigation path, but each section earns its place by helping an agent handle non-obvious cases.

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 simple list endpoint with optional filters, the description covers the important behavioral cases: default filtering, empty-list interpretation, status alternatives, and how the returned `uuid` is used by related tools. There is no output schema, and the description does not spell out the full response shape, but it provides enough for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both `status` and `provider` are documented with enum values and descriptions. The description adds the default-active nuance for `status` but does not add meaningful information about `provider`. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb, resource, and scope: it lists the Git provider accounts the customer has connected. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `hosting_listGitInstallationRepositoriesV1` by framing these as installations rather than repositories and by naming the downstream use of `uuid`.

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 gives clear context: default behavior is active-only unless a status filter is supplied, and it explains how to interpret an empty list and what action to take. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X', but it clearly implies this endpoint is for discovering connected Git installations before using repository or build tools.

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