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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the read-only annotations: stored secrets are omitted, disabled connections are excluded by default, canCall explains whether each connection is callable, and large lists are returned in resource chunks. This gives the agent useful expectations for filtering, security, and response behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and scope, and most sentences carry useful information. The final phrase 'complete live-hash-guarded resource chunks' is somewhat opaque implementation jargon.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough context about scope, secret omission, disabled filtering, callability, and chunking. No essential invocation detail appears to be 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 schema already explains both 'team' and 'includeDisabled' including the false default. The description reinforces these semantics but does not add meaning beyond the structured parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'List complete public connection configuration' for an account or team. The scope is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling audit tools such as connection_audit_recent.

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 account-versus-team context is clear from the 'team' parameter discussion, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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