List connections

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

The description expands on the readOnlyHint by explaining lazy token refresh, the meaning of past expires_at, null as never-expiring, and that token material is never returned. These behaviors are not implied by the annotation and are essential for correct interpretation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the primary function, the status field's meaning, and token refresh/security details. Front-loaded with the main action and no filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the resource, the fields returned, how to interpret status and timestamps, and security guarantees. The lack of an output schema does not create a gap because the description narrates the key return semantics.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers this dimension (100% coverage trivially). The description adds meaning about the response semantics, which is valuable given there are no parameters to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the authenticated account's third-party OAuth connections') and details what it returns (status, auth/expiry times, scopes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on agents, workflows, and runs.

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 implies usage for checking connection health via the status predicate ('authorized needs no action; reconnect_needed or unauthorized does'), which is a clear use case. No explicit alternative is given, but no sibling tool serves this purpose, so context is sufficient.

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