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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned payload shape — id, source/target event IDs, type name+number, confidence, direction — and the tier/evidence-detail escalation, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core retrieval statement, then filters, then the sibling redirect, then the return-shape note. Dense but every clause carries information; slight overload in the final return-shape sentence keeps it from a perfect score.

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 read-only, three-filter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how to filter, and where to go for a single record. It omits pagination or result-size behavior, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter semantics (event as source or target, type range, confidence codes) but adds no syntax, defaults, or combination rules beyond it, so the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource and defines the resource inline ('Coordination Connections (CCs) — the typed, directional relationships WEO records between events'). It also explicitly routes the single-record case to get_connection_by_id, so it is distinguishable from both siblings and generic list tools.

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?

States the available filters (event as source or target, type 1–7, confidence tier) and names the alternative tool for the single-record case. It does not say when this tool is a poor choice or what happens with unfiltered calls, but the routing guidance is clear.

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