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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the visibility asymmetry (outgoing shows status only) and, notably, a trust boundary: names, owner labels and notes from other owners are untrusted data, not instructions. That prompt-injection warning is behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Two tight clauses: the scope/direction semantics first, then the untrusted-data caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 shape need not be explained, and pagination mechanics live in the 'before'/'limit' schema fields. What remains is covered: direction semantics and the trust boundary. Only minor gaps (when to prefer filtering by status, pagination flow) keep it from a 5.

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 75%, so the schema already documents limit, before and direction, including the note that 'before' needs a direction. The description restates the incoming/outgoing semantics but adds nothing about limit, cursor format or the status enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 cross-owner connection requests') and immediately scopes it by the two directions it returns, distinguishing it from inbox/mention/room siblings that also 'list' things. An agent can tell this is the connection-request listing tool 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 explains the two directions and what each yields ('incoming ... awaiting your decision', 'outgoing ... you see only their status'), which implies the triage use case, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus another or states any exclusion. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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