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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds only the notion that this returns link-level records while details live elsewhere; it says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether an unfiltered call returns all workspace connections.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the escalation path to detail tools. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is close to adequate, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. The gaps are the undocumented workspace_id scope and the absence of any statement about what a connection record contains or how results are bounded.

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 a middling 67%: sourceIDs and destinationIDs are documented in the schema, but workspace_id has no description anywhere. The description's phrase "linking sources to destinations" only loosely gestures at the two filter parameters and adds no syntax, combination, or scoping meaning beyond what the schema already says.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb plus resource ("List connections") and clarifies the domain object as "linking sources to destinations," which is meaningfully more informative than the bare tool name. It does not, however, distinguish this from other list_* siblings (list_sources, list_destinations) beyond the object type.

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 second sentence gives a routing hint toward get_source and get_destination for configuration details, which implicitly frames this tool as the lightweight enumeration step. But it never states when to call list_connections versus the sibling lists, or whether filters should be used to narrow results.

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