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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: 'unmetered' (cost behavior), 'no side effects', and notably the partial-failure contract that an unreadable section returns its own {error, detail} instead of vanishing. The one gap is that it doesn't indicate the response envelope or size/ordering of next_actions beyond 'ranked', though with no output schema that is a minor omission.

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 role ('the session opener') and then a single scannable inventory of return sections, ending with the behavioral caveats. The long semicolon-chained inventory is dense but each item is concrete; only minor tightening would be possible.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: every section of the payload is named, the error shape for failed sections is given, and the safety/cost profile is restated. For a two-optional-parameter aggregate read, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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% and both parameters (person, project) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions either parameter or explains how 'run as this person' affects the identity and next_actions returned, which would have been genuinely additive context.

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 role (session opener / aggregate read) and enumerates exactly what comes back: identity and company binding, live public deals with counts and links, member's own deals, contact and hosted-event counts, ranked next_actions, and a voice summary. It also explicitly positions itself against the sibling connections_whoami by saying it carries that tool's answer inside it, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Calling it 'the session opener' plus the note that it embeds connections_whoami's answer gives clear context for when to reach for it (session start, and instead of a separate whoami call). It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. it never says not to also call connections_deals_list or connections_events_list alongside it, leaving some overlap for the agent to infer.

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