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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it returns tools, resources and prompts plus a per-gateway enabled/disabled flag, which tells the agent what the output actually contains. It stops short of return ordering or pagination details.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the three returned categories, and the enabled-state dimension with no filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing 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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, this gives the agent what it needs: the subject (a connection), the returned categories, and the enabled flag. Minor gap: no mention of whether disabled items are omitted or merely flagged—though the wording leans toward flagged.

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% and the single slug parameter is documented in the schema, so baseline is 3; the description nudges above it by clarifying that the slug denotes "one connected server" as the unit of lookup, reinforcing the identifier's meaning.

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 ("List") plus a precisely scoped resource ("what one connected server offers"), and it enumerates the three item kinds returned. It is distinguishable from connection_call or connection_tool_schema by scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

The phrase "one connected server" and the required slug imply this is the per-connection inventory lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion against neighbors like connection_tool_schema or list_connections. Usage must be inferred from the title and scope.

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