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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by stating what is returned (the tool's description and input schema), which is not in the annotations. It is silent on behavior for an unknown tool name or a not-yet-connected server, which keeps it below a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The phrasing 'by its name "<prefix>__<tool>"' is slightly clunky and tucked mid-sentence, but the size is right and every clause carries information.

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 return-value burden and does so at a high level (description + input schema). Combined with full schema documentation and read-only annotations, this is sufficient for correct invocation; only failure-condition detail 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% and the single parameter already documents the "<prefix>__<tool>" format with an example. The description restates the same format but adds no additional semantics (no case sensitivity, no error on bad prefix), so baseline 3 applies.

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 (show), resource (a connection tool's description and input schema), and the addressing format. It is clearly separable from siblings like connection_tools (lists tools) and connection_call (invokes them), since it returns metadata for a single named tool.

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?

Explicitly scopes when to use it: only for a server connected after the client last listed tools, whose tools aren't yet listed. It doesn't name the alternative tool (connection_tools) outright as the default path, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out, but the condition is clear.

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