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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the shape of the payload and the key constraint that key values are never returned — surfaced once at creation — which an agent must know before attempting to use this for secret retrieval.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the enumerated payload. The long middle clause is dense but every item listed is a real returned field; the closing sentence on key values is short and high-value. Minor density cost only.

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 carries the burden of describing return content and does so thoroughly, including the notable absence of key values. What is missing is failure behavior — what happens when no connection exists or access is denied — which for a zero-param read is a small but real 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully described, and the description correctly implies the connection is identified from the existing session/context rather than an argument.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Read this connection") followed by an enumeration of exactly what is returned: client, acting account, approval time, rules/projects, and every long-lived key with its creation and last-use metadata. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like configure_connection or create_connection_key without opening any schema.

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 only implied: it is clearly the way to inspect an existing connection, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. that a connection must already exist), and no routing to alternatives for related reads. Given the zero-parameter, single-object nature of the tool, this is sufficient but not instructive.

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