List available connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds substantive context beyond that: the underlying REST operation, the required scopes (integrations:read, luca:read), redaction sensitivity, and idempotency expectations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact block of operational facts. Mostly economical, though 'Does not require idempotency' is slightly redundant against the idempotentHint annotation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the auth/scope and workspace-override details, the description is largely complete; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining that both optional params override a default workspace configured by the environment, a behavior the schema ('Optional Luca workspace id override') does not convey.

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 (List) and resource (connectors), and names the concrete providers covered: Zapier, Make, and CRM. This lets an agent distinguish it from luca_campaigns_provider_capabilities or luca_integrations_crm_connections_list without opening those schemas, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative sibling tools that also list integration data. The only directive ('Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override...') is parameter mechanics, not usage context.

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