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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds little beyond them: the field list duplicates the output schema, and pagination/result-size behavior is never mentioned. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the alternative, then the signature — a sensible order with almost no waste. The signature line is mildly redundant given the schema, but it is short and helps quick invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the enumerated fields are a bonus rather than a necessity, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read with a named alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though noting pagination or empty-result behavior would round it out.

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% and the single optional space_uuid is fully documented there, including the auto-detection rule. The description's 'Signature: connections_agent_list(space_uuid?)' only restates optionality. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Lists the agent connections') and even disambiguates the domain term as 'AI-configured REST API integrations' of a space. It also names the returned fields, so an agent immediately knows the shape of what comes back and how this differs from connections_agent_get.

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?

Explicitly routes the single-connection case to connections_agent_get ('for a single connection's plan and API schema'), which gives a clear alternative. It does not say when listing is inappropriate or how it relates to other listing siblings like connections_list, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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