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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: bounded continuation, freshness, source restrictions, and explicitly that secrets are not exposed and source access is not granted. It still omits pagination expiry and admin-role requirements implied by the schema.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the security boundary last. The middle phrase "source restrictions, freshness and bounded continuation" is dense and abstract but not padded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers listing scope, continuation bounds and the security boundary, leaving only role/scope prerequisites implied rather than stated.

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 q, limit, cursor and source, including enum values and defaults. The description alludes to source filtering and bounded continuation but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

Specific verb+resource: "List current workspace connection metadata". This clearly separates it from siblings like connections.graph, connections.roots and connector.health, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling connections.catalog.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named despite several connection-related siblings (connections.catalog, connections.roots). The clause "Does not reveal secrets or grant source access" hints at scope but is not a usage condition.

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