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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the connection is remote and saved; it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are scoped to the connection. This is adequate but not rich.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description plus annotations and schema are enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it omits any usage routing against siblings and leaves walletAddress unexplained, and without an output schema it does not clarify what the listed tools contain.

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 50%: qHash is documented as 'Connection proof ID,' but walletAddress has no description. The tool description itself does not mention either parameter or explain how they identify or scope the connection, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (tools available through a saved remote MCP connection), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as proofable_mcp_connections_list or proofable_mcp_tool_execute, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The phrase 'saved remote MCP connection' implies a saved connection is needed, but the agent must infer this without any routing help.

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