List available connectors and instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, non-mutating nature is known. The description adds that the response contains integrationSettingId and clientIntegrationId specifically, useful behavioral detail about the return payload without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and returns, the second provides a concrete usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless list operation with read-only annotations, the description fully covers what is returned and why it matters. No output schema exists, so the return payload description is sufficient. The tool's scope (environment) is implied by the name and use case.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output and usage rather than inventing unnecessary param details.

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 'Returns all available connectors with integrationSettingId + instances with clientIntegrationId', using a specific verb and resource. It also frames the purpose in terms of downstream use, distinguishing it from sibling tools by focusing on connector/instance listing.

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 explicitly states when to use the returned values: 'Use these values when creating or updating rules on an environment.' This gives clear context for application, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid using.

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