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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two things annotations cannot: results are owner-scoped (useful auth/scope context) and collections are continued by passing page.nextCursor unchanged. It does not cover behavior such as what happens when no connection matches, which keeps it at 4.

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 operations before the scoping and pagination caveats, with no filler. The cursor sentence is slightly telegraphic ('Continue a collection with page.nextCursor unchanged') but earns its place.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers scope plus pagination for a nested-schema read tool. Minor gap: it does not say whether pagination applies to all three modes or what findOne returns on a miss.

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 75% schema description coverage, mode, where, and connectionId are already documented in the schema, including the status enum. The description's only added parameter meaning is the operational note that page.nextCursor should be passed back unchanged, which is genuinely useful but covers just one of four parameters.

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 (connected institution(s)) and enumerates the three operations the mode enum supports: single lookup, listing, and status filtering. It is specific enough to distinguish a read lookup from the sibling write tool mofi_connections_sync, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the mode list (find one vs list vs filter), and the schema enum note covers the per-mode requirements (connectionId for findOne, where for query). There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement about when to reach for a sibling instead, so guidance is present but inferential.

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