connections_by_node_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain that the jobId originates from a separate request call, whether results may still be pending, or how the result set behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. Its terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the tool's role in a request/result pair.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the crucial async context (that the jobId comes from connections_by_node_request), which is exactly the kind of information a 'result' tool needs.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies that jobId is a job identifier used as the lookup key, which is useful, but adds nothing about format, source, or valid ranges beyond the parameter name.

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 (Get) plus resource (Connections for Node) and the lookup key (by Job ID), so an agent knows it retrieves node connection data keyed on a job. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling connections_by_node_request, leaving the request/result relationship to inference, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as connections_by_node_request, which is presumably what produces the jobId. The async pairing is only weakly implied by the word 'result' in the name, not stated in the description.

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