list_connectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: credentials are never returned, status filtering happens client-side on the returned page, and results are paginated. These are real behavioral disclosures beyond the structured hints.

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?

The description is efficiently packed: scope, returned fields, credential caveat, pagination, and usage guidance all appear in three sentences with no filler. The most important usage-routing sentence is placed near the end but remains highly discoverable.

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 paginated list tool with fully documented parameters, read-only annotations, and no complex side effects, the description covers organization scope, output fields, credential privacy, pagination, and client-side filtering. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 page, limit, and status. The description adds value by explaining that status filters the returned page client-side rather than affecting the query, and by noting pagination semantics. This goes slightly beyond the baseline for covered schemas.

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 ('data connectors'), scoped to the caller's organization, and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, connector_type, status, visibility). This clearly distinguishes it from connector-specific tools like get_connector and test_connector.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool first to obtain a connector_id for get_connector, test_connector, browse_connector, and repository tools, and names create_connector as the alternative for adding a connector. This is strong routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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