List CRM connections

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: required scope integrations:read, OAuth scope luca:read, and data sensitivity 'redacted'. 'Does not require idempotency' is consistent with idempotentHint=true (no key needed) rather than a contradiction, but the phrasing is slightly ambiguous.

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 operation summary, then structured metadata lines (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override) that are all actionable. Minor redundancy between 'Required scopes' and 'Required OAuth scope' lines, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-param list tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), it covers auth, workspace resolution, and idempotency. What remains thin is explicit differentiation from adjacent integration tools, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents both optional params. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining these are overrides for 'the default workspace configured by environment,' clarifying the fallback behavior the schema alone 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+resource ('List CRM connections') and reinforces it with the concrete endpoint GET /api/integrations/crm/connections. The 'List' verb naturally distinguishes it from siblings like connections_create, connections_health, and connections_schema, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts 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?

It gives one usage hint – use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the environment default – but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as connections_health or connections_schema. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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