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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful security and scope context: it discloses that secrets are not revealed and that source restrictions and freshness metadata are surfaced, along with bounded continuation.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key safety boundary. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope or limitations.

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?

The tool has an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and strong annotations, so the description need not explain return shapes or safety semantics. It covers the listing scope, security boundary, and pagination behavior, though sibling differentiation is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description loosely gestures at source filtering and continuation, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'List current workspace connection metadata.' It is more specific than the tool name alone, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as connections_catalog, connections_graph, or connections_roots.

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 by the listing scope and by the boundary statement 'Does not reveal secrets or grant source access,' which tells the agent what this tool will not do. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use routing guidance.

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