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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's bar is lower. It still adds meaningful behavior: 'safe metadata' signals that sensitive fields (e.g. credentials/secrets) are redacted from the response, and it scopes the lookup to the authorized workspace.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers only what structured data cannot: that the returned metadata is sanitized and workspace-scoped.

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 single 'id' parameter has no description anywhere, so the description could clarify whether this is a connection ID, slug, or name. 'One upstream connection' only weakly implies the parameter identifies a connection; baseline 3 for a sparse single-param tool.

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+resource: 'Get safe metadata for one upstream connection.' The word 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling connection_list without naming it explicitly. Siblings connection_create/connection_update are clearly different operations, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative is named. The phrase 'in the authorized workspace' hints at scope but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over connection_list or how to obtain a valid id.

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