connections_by_user_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 this consumes a job ID produced by connections_by_user_request, whether the job must be complete, or how pending/failed jobs are handled.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the retrieval key. It is efficiently stated, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing context noted elsewhere.

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 read tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is very thin. It omits the essential async-job relationship to connections_by_user_request and connections_by_node_result, which is the key context an agent needs to call 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% for the single jobId parameter, so the description must carry weight. "by Job ID" does at least connect the parameter to the job concept, but adds no format, source, or validity detail beyond what the property name already implies.

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?

"Get Connections for User by Job ID" names a verb (get) and a resource (connections for a user) and adds the lookup key (job ID). However, it largely restates the tool name and does not distinguish itself from its close siblings connections_by_user_request and connections_by_node_result, so an agent cannot tell this is the result/retrieval half of an async job pattern.

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 use this tool versus connections_by_user_request (the request that presumably produces the job ID) or connections_by_node_result. The pairing is only inferable from the name, not the description.

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