connections_by_user_request

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

Annotations declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the important non-obvious trait that the operation is asynchronous — a job is started on the node(s) and a jobId is returned. That async contract is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express and is the main reason an agent would otherwise misuse the tool. It does not mention latency, per-node fan-out behavior, or failure modes.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the follow-up instruction. Every clause earns its place by either defining the operation or directing the next call.

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 async read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is returned conceptually (active connection IPs), that a jobId comes back, and where to fetch results. It is slightly thin on the multi-node aspect ('node(s)') and any timing expectations, but nothing critical 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 0% for the single userId parameter, so the description must compensate. It only implies the identifier via 'of a user' and adds no format, type, or resolution guidance (e.g. numeric ID vs uuid) beyond what the schema already declares. For a trivial single-identifier param this is acceptable but not 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 — 'Request the active connections (IPs) of a user' — which cleanly separates it from the node-scoped sibling connections_by_node_request. It also names its result companion, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening schemas. It stops short of 5 only because the distinction from the node variant is implied by 'of a user' rather than stated.

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 clear workflow context: this call starts a job and the outcome must be retrieved via connections_by_user_result. That is actionable routing guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over connections_by_node_request or connections_geocheck_request, so there is no explicit alternative-selection rule.

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