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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: the response never contains credentials, never contains grant info, errors on unknown or non-visible ids, and a connection:view/:manage permission does not broaden visibility. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 long but front-loaded and information-dense. Each sentence adds a distinct and valuable fact: returned fields, credential exclusion, grant exclusion, standard use, and visibility semantics. It is structured well, though slightly verbose for a simple get-by-id operation.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: return shape, exclusions, typical use case, error conditions, and auth/visibility edge cases. There is no meaningful gap that would cause an agent to misuse or misselect this tool.

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% for the single required parameter, and the schema already documents that id is a `conn_…` string from connection.list. The main description doesn't add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read one connection by id" and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also differentiates this tool from siblings by explicitly stating what it is not (no credential, no grant information), making it unambiguous alongside connection.list and connection.list_tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: confirming status became "active" after a connect_url from create/reconnect, and states this is the ONLY operation to answer that. It also directs the user to connection.list when the question is about who else can access the connection, naming the alternative and the condition clearly.

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