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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-readn nature is already known. The description adds meaningful context by naming the returned information (positions, remaining time, timezone) and explicitly warning that connection credentials are not returned.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core behavior first and the security-relevant exclusion second. No unnecessary words or repeated annotation information.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool, the description covers the key return categories and an important credential-safety caveat. With rich annotations and a fully described optional parameter, this is sufficient; a return-shape example would be nice but is not necessary at this complexity.

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 schema's connectionRef description already explains it fully, including usage nuances. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail, 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 and resource: it returns connected-company contexts and connection-expiry metadata. It clearly differentiates itself from most list tools by naming its unique subject matter, though it does not explicitly contrast with connection lifecycle siblings like brc_start_company_connection or brc_confirm_company_connection.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The parameter schema contains useful re-use guidance for connectionRef, but the description itself does not state when this tool should be selected or which sibling would be appropriate in other cases.

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