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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the required 'executor.run' permission and the security guarantee that keys are never returned (only fingerprints). It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result ordering.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return contract. Every clause carries information — the revoke cross-reference and the 'never a key' guarantee both earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description properly enumerates the returned fields, and it discloses the permission requirement, which is what an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is pagination: result_offset exists but neither the description nor schema explains it.

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 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. project_id is at least inferable from 'on a project', but result_offset — clearly a pagination offset — is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent no guidance on how to page through sessions.

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 and resource with scope: 'List the live SSH sessions this connector opened on a project.' It also disambiguates from the SSH siblings by noting the connector-scoped, read-only listing role and tying the returned id to executor_ssh_revoke.

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 clearly implied and partly explicit: the tool is the way to obtain a session_id for executor_ssh_revoke. It does not explicitly say when to prefer executor_ssh_run, executor_ssh_access, or executor_ssh_revoke instead, so there is no full when/when-not routing.

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