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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are limited to the owner's own agents/apps, but says nothing about whether revoked or pending grants appear, or how the answer is shaped.

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?

One short sentence with the key qualifier (owner-scoped, from list_connections) up front and no filler. The parenthetical placement is slightly awkward 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 small read-only lookup with no output schema, the description should hint at the returned shape — it names agents and apps, which is a partial answer, but omits whether permissions/roles come with them. Adequate but not 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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and the '(from list_connections)' note does convey the ID's origin and referent. It does not clarify format (opaque ID vs name) or whether the ID must belong to the caller's org.

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 names the resource (a connection's access) and what it reveals (which owner agents and apps may use it), which is specific enough to separate it from nearby tools like get_connection_status. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, so it falls short of a fully explicit 'retrieves the access list for' framing.

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 implicitly tells the agent to obtain the connection_id from list_connections, which is useful routing. It gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against get_connection_status or get_app_knowledge_access.

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