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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the exact shape of the response (one tool, fields, example, confirmation flag), the capability-map fallback, and that unknown argument names are surfaced in `ignored_params` rather than dropped. It does not state rate limits or latency, but none are implied for a local help router.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, then the primary output, then the disambiguation parameter, then the no-match fallback. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding or restated name/title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by enumerating what comes back (single tool, required fields, optional fields, runnable example, confirmation flag) and what happens when nothing matches. For a zero-required-param router, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the alias set and the domain disambiguation rationale that the schema already documents ('add could be a todo or a contact'), and the intent examples are duplicated in the schema. It adds little semantic payload beyond structured fields, though it usefully frames intent as 'the member's own words'.

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 function: routing an intent to the single correct Connections tool and returning its required fields, optional fields, a runnable example, and confirmation requirement. It also defines the secondary behavior (full capability map when intent is absent or matches nothing). This is unmistakably distinct from every connections_* sibling, which each perform concrete actions.

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 to use it BEFORE guessing which Connections tool to call, or when unsure what Connections can do at all, and explains that `domain` should be added when intent alone is ambiguous. Implicitly defines when not to use it (when the target tool is already known), and the fallback condition is spelled out precisely.

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