list_organization_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds non-annotation context that matters operationally: it 'Requires the caller OAuth token'. It does not mention pagination or result volume, which is the only material gap.

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, each carrying a distinct job: what it does, the two exclusions, and the auth prerequisite. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence with 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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers scope, sibling disambiguation and auth. Only the return shape (e.g. pagination or empty-result behavior) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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% and both parameters (environmentId, organizationId) are documented with format patterns in the schema itself. The description only implies that organizationId scopes the result; it adds no format, ordering, or filtering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List SSO connections') and explicitly narrows scope to 'one organization', which distinguishes it from the environment-level sibling without requiring the caller to open either 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?

Names the two alternative tools and the exact condition selecting each: use list_environment_connections for environment-wide connections, and enable_environment_connection (not this tool) to enable a connection. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the wrong choice.

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