connections_connections_by_user_result

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. An agent cannot tell whether the job must be complete, what happens for an unknown/expired jobId, whether this requires auth, or whether results are transient.

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 body is short and front-loads the endpoint, but it wastes lines on a raw HTTP route and a 'Tags: Connections Controller' artifact that give the agent no actionable information.

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 tool that appears to be the result-fetch half of a job pair, with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is under-specified. It omits the job lifecycle, return shape, and error behavior an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description would need to compensate for the single required parameter. It only echoes jobId as a path placeholder ({jobId}); it never explains what a job ID is, its format, or where the agent obtains one.

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 names a verb (Get) and resource (Connections for User) and exposes the endpoint path, so the literal purpose is discernible. However, it never distincts itself from the sibling 'connections_connections_by_user' – the 'result' suffix and jobId parameter strongly imply it retrieves the output of an async job, but that is left for the agent to infer.

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 statement of when to call this versus connections_connections_by_user or connections_connections_by_node_result, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a job must first be started). Usage is only implied by the name.

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