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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false). The description adds real context beyond that: the feed is 'always active, public listings', 'mine' includes every status including drafts, and the feed ranks a query by relevance. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, but the safety profile is already covered structurally.

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-loads the trigger conditions, then scope semantics, then filters, then the alternative tool. Well-organized and mostly tight, though the row-field enumeration slightly overlaps with schema-documented outputs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each row carries (title, summary, category, region, capital sought, status, link) and covers both scopes plus the posting alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, query, scope, detail, fields, offset, region, status and category with defaults and enums. The description reaffirms scope semantics and filtering but adds little syntax the schema lacks, 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?

States a specific verb (list/browse) and resource (deals/listings), enumerates the trigger phrasings, and distinguishes the two scopes ('feed' vs 'mine'). It also names the sibling connections_deal_create as the posting alternative, so an agent can separate it from nearby 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the member asks about Deals, listings, what is for sale, raises, or their own postings') and routes the write case to connections_deal_create ('To post a new deal, use...'). No inference required.

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