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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that results are canonical and not client-specific guesses, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what the return structure looks like. Significant gaps remain for a read-like tool.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose and constraint ('without guessing client-specific config') are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the parameter description already embedded, the description is minimally adequate. However, with multiple sibling tools and no guidance on how this differs from inspect_domain or get_access_options, an agent may not know when this is the right choice. Some additional context about what 'connection details' encompass would improve completeness.

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 domain parameter already has a clear description ('BrunoSan domain id/name whose canonical MCP connection should be returned'). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and a resource ('canonical connection details') while explicitly clarifying that it does not guess client-specific config. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_access_options or inspect_domain, though the exact content of 'connection details' remains somewhat vague.

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 description implies that this tool provides canonical, authoritative connection info, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of siblings like discover_brunosan or get_access_options. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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