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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real context on top — default sort key (name), the shape of each record, and the dual identifier scheme with its downstream purpose. It omits pagination/result-envelope behavior, but the page/per_page/order params are schema-documented.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the record shape and identifier guidance. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 does the work of describing the returned record fields and their purpose, which is the key gap for a list tool. It doesn't address pagination totals or empty results, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it establishes that ordering applies to the name field and clarifies the two identifiers (hash_key vs numeric id) that the schema does not distinguish. Page/per_page semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 and explains what a 'connection' is (companies, clients, vendors in the network) plus the sort order. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from hiveage_get_connection or the potentially confusing hiveage_list_contacts sibling, so it stops 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?

Implies list-style usage and usefully tells the agent where the returned values go (hash_key for other tools, id as connection_id when creating invoices), which nudges toward create-invoice workflows. However, it never says when to use this versus hiveage_list_contacts or hiveage_get_connection, which is the main ambiguity in this tool family.

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