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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response includes grants, last use and expiry — worthwhile since there is no output schema — but says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single short sentence with nothing extraneous, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though it mirrors the title rather than adding new information.

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 mention of returned fields (grants, last use, expiry) partially compensates. But for a read tool in a family that also revokes connections, it omits sibling routing, pagination behavior, and any caveat about whose connections are listed — leaving real gaps even against the rich annotation set.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for parameter-free tools applies. No misleading parameter semantics are introduced.

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 states the verb and resource ('List this person's agent connections') and names the data returned (grants, last use, expiry), so the purpose is discernible. However, it is a verbatim restatement of the title and adds no differentiation from siblings such as summer_account_connections_revoke or summer_account_me. 'This person' is also ambiguous with no parameter to identify the person.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the alternative tools in the same family (e.g. summer_account_connections_revoke for revoking access, summer_account_me for profile data). Usage can only be inferred from the tool name.

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