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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the "Read-only" sentence adds little. The description does add useful behavioral context by naming the audited event types (credential expiry, disconnect, refused reads), which helps an agent understand what the history contains. It does not mention ordering, retention, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with an em-dash enumeration, followed by a terse "Read-only" tag. Every clause conveys content, and the structure leads with the resource before event details. The "Read-only" sentence largely duplicates the annotation, but the description remains efficient overall.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a list tool with four largely undocumented parameters, the description leaves filtering and pagination semantics unaddressed, making it only minimally complete for an agent to call it confidently.

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 only 25% across four parameters, and the description does not explain companyId scoping, connectionId filtering, pageSize limits, or pageToken usage. It implies company scoping with "a company's" but provides no parameter-level semantics to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 (Lists) and resource (a company's connected-source history), then enumerates the exact event types captured. This distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling connection_list_connected_events, which likely lists external events rather than connection audit history, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 what content the tool returns but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the event enumeration that this is for connection audit history rather than, say, calendar events.

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