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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the result reflects what the connection 'currently holds', but it does not describe return structure, pagination, or auth caveats. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 places the action and returned information first and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only 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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what is returned and the connection-specific scope. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at the result shape beyond 'permission groups and scopes', though this is small for such a simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which is the baseline for a 4 on this dimension. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not introduce confusing or unnecessary parameter claims.

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 clearly states the verb 'Show' and the resource 'permission groups and scopes', scoped to 'this connection currently holds'. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as request_scopes or list_connections.

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 that this tool is used to inspect current permissions, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention request_scopes as the mutation-oriented sibling or explain when a caller should list versus request scopes.

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