list_connected_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: pagination semantics ('one page at a time') and the OAuth token requirement. It stops short of describing what a fuller result looks like or how the summary grouping affects the shape.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the routing guidance. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact.

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?

No output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure rests on the description; it conveys paging and that accounts group by connector only indirectly via the schema's summary param. Given 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is close to complete, with only return-format detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 6 parameters, including the summary/full-detail toggle, pageSize caps, and filter formats, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the environment scoping already implied by the required environmentId, and contributes no extra syntax or filter guidance.

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 ('List connected accounts') plus scope ('in one environment') and then defines the domain object ('the users who authorized a connector'), so an agent knows exactly what entities come back. It also names the closely related siblings it is not, making it distinguishable without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit disambiguation: 'Use search_connectors to find a connector in the catalog' and 'Use list_environment_connections for SSO connections, not connector accounts' — both an alternative and an exclusion. The auth prerequisite ('Requires the caller OAuth token') is also stated up front.

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