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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral context: auth tokens are never returned, only a boolean indicating whether one is set. That materially changes what an agent can expect and prevents a pointless hunt for secrets.

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 short sentences, zero redundancy, with the security-relevant caveat front-loaded right after the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only partially hints at return shape (the token-presence flag). For a simple one-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly complete, though a note on what fields a connection record contains would close the last gap.

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% with a single required projectKey already documented with an example, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('external MCP connections') and scopes it to a project. The read-only counterpart to upsert_mcp_connection is unambiguous from the name and description alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to inspect existing connections before calling upsert_mcp_connection, but the description never says so or names the alternative. No when-not guidance is given.

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