connections_fetch_by_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key asynchronous behavior and the jobId return, which goes beyond the schema. It omits details about how to retrieve the result, the lifetime of the job, or failure behavior, leaving an noticeable gap for an async job tool.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then tucks the essential async/jobId caveat into a parenthetical. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent the essential behavior: start an async job and receive a jobId. The sibling connections_get_user_result and the visible naming convention make the polling step reasonably discoverable, though explicitly referencing it would make the description fully complete.

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?

The single parameter userId is fully documented in the schema as 'User numeric ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is needed at this level of coverage; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the action (fetch) and resource (active connections for a user), and the parenthetical adds an important qualifier that it is an async job returning a jobId. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by the by_user naming and the explicit async behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast with connections_fetch_by_node or connections_get_user_result.

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?

The phrase 'async job, returns jobId' implicitly tells the agent that this tool initiates a polling workflow rather than immediately returning connection data. However, it does not explicitly state that connections_get_user_result should be called afterward, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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