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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: list mode never returns code, paging is 200 at a time, and oversized scripts return script_locked_by_tier with data preserved (not deleted) and restored on upgrade. That level of disclosure goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The WITH/WITHOUT front-loading makes the two modes scannable and every clause carries information (paging, tier ceiling, error code). It is a dense single paragraph though, and the parenthetical about script_run could be tighter.

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 compensates by naming the return signals (total_count, next_offset, size, locked status, script_locked_by_tier) and the tier-gating behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly in either mode.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining tool_name's dual role (present=fetch, absent=list) and by describing the offset/next_offset walk and total_count continuation signal. It stops short of restating limit bounds or person/project semantics, so it is not a full 5.

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 names both modes precisely (fetch one stored script's code+metadata vs. list all stored scripts) and scopes each mode's return data, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like connections_script_save or connections_script_delete without opening the 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?

It explicitly states when to call directly versus when script_run handles it internally ('call it directly only to inspect or port code'), and gives the mode-selection rule (tool_name present vs. absent). No alternative routing is left to inference.

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