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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the one-time-link flow, that credentials are never transmitted through chat, that the response carries connection_string_format and auth_note which must be surfaced verbatim, and the mssql/Entra edge case with an explicit warning against constructing a URL connection string. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cannot convey.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the crucial 'no connection string input' constraint and then the dialect-specific caveat. Every sentence carries actionable information; the mssql paragraph is long but justified by the failure mode it prevents.

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?

Despite an output schema already existing, the description names the two response fields the agent must relay, and it covers the input contract, the human-in-the-loop step, and the trickiest dialect edge case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow up correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the dialect parameter by explaining what each dialect implies downstream and detailing the mssql/Entra special case. It doesn't elaborate on the name parameter beyond the schema's own example, so it is not a 5.

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+resource ('Get a secure one-time link to register a new database connection') and names the supported dialects. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_connections, test_connection, and remove_connection, which operate on existing connections rather than onboarding new ones.

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?

Clearly states the usage context: this is for registering a new connection, and it explicitly rules out passing a connection string as input, redirecting the user to the returned web form. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., test_connection for validating an existing connection), so it stops short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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