connections_connections_by_node_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the job must be complete before calling, not what happens if the jobId is unknown or the job is still running, not the return shape, and not any auth or rate-limit context. Only the jobId parameter name hints at asynchronous behavior.

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 text is short and front-loads the verb and resource, but a raw HTTP route ("/api/connections/by-node/{jobId}") and the "Tags: Connections Controller" line are noise that consumes most of the description without helping an agent.

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 job-result retrieval endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should explain the async workflow and what the result contains. Instead it repeats the route, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently or interpret its output.

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 0% for the single jobId parameter, and the description adds no meaning beyond echoing the parameter name ("by Job ID"). It does not say where the jobId comes from, whether it is a UUID, or how long it remains valid, so the schema gap is left unfilled.

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 states a verb and resource ("Get Connections for Node by Job ID") and the required jobId implies result retrieval, but the text is essentially a restatement of the raw HTTP route with controller/tag boilerplate. It does not differentiate this result-fetching tool from the sibling connections_connections_by_node that presumably launches the job, so an agent must infer the pairing from the name 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus connections_connections_by_node or connections_connections_by_user_result. The async job workflow (start with the sibling, then poll this with the returned jobId) is never stated, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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