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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: credentials are never returned because the server holds them, and connections are provisioned by an administrator in azquo-admin. That is genuine behavioral disclosure about security and lifecycle, though it says nothing about what the listing contains beyond the name.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the downstream usage hint, then the escalation path. Every sentence carries actionable information and none repeats the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to identify the NAME as the usable output field and to warn that credentials are excluded. It could say a bit more about what each listed connection exposes (e.g., type or description), but for a zero-parameter read tool in a family of list_* siblings it is functionally complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to explain, and nothing is misleading about the call signature.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List the external database connections configured for this business'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_databases, list_businesses, and list_names. An agent knows exactly what it is and what scope it operates over without opening the 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?

The description routes the agent forward ('Use the connection NAME with import_from_query') and tells it what to do when the desired source is absent ('ask for it to be added rather than looking for another route to the data'), which functions as an explicit exclusion. It stops short of stating the trigger condition for calling this tool first (e.g., before import_from_query), so it is slightly short of a full when/when-not pairing.

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