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 covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the empty-`connection_ids` fallback returns all schemas, a failed lookup returns a directive to call connections_list, and there is an explicit performance caveat for large databases. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned payload, which the output schema covers.

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 purpose followed by the workflow, the fallback behavior and the performance alternative — a sensible priority order. The trailing 'Signature: connections_get_schemas(space_uuid?, connection_ids?[])' line is pure duplication of the input schema and does not earn its place.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, prerequisite discovery step, default breadth, failure recovery, and a scaling alternative. Nothing material 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 the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by tying `connection_ids` to its source (connections_list) and stating the default-to-all semantics, which clarifies the invocation pattern rather than merely restating the type. `space_uuid` handling is left entirely to the schema, so it is not fully additive.

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 — returns full table schemas (tables + columns + types) for database connections in a space — and immediately names two sibling tools (connections_list, connections_search_tables) with the conditions that distinguish them. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Run connections_list first to discover connection uuids'), an alternative for a specific case ('For very large databases, prefer connections_search_tables'), and the empty-argument behavior plus the recovery path if the space has no connections. When/when-not/alternatives are all present.

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