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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it 'Returns the paged envelope,' which hints at the response shape, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth scope beyond 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?

Three compact sentences, zero waste. The purpose and resource definition are front-loaded before the API endpoint detail.

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 list endpoint with no output schema and full schema coverage, this is nearly complete — it names the operation, the resource, and the endpoint. Only routing guidance to the single-connection sibling 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%, so all five parameters (including query, orderBy, page, pageSize) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('List a company's data connections') and explains the resource itself — each connection links a company to a source platform like QuickBooks or Xero. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like codat_get_connection (single) and codat_create_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 implies usage by describing what connections are, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions — e.g. it never says to prefer codat_get_connection when a specific connectionId is known. Adequate context, no routing.

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