list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read/list operation by using 'lists' and describes the return structure including pagination via nextToken. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but the read-only nature is evident from the verb and schema.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses clear sections (Args, Returns). However, it repeats phrases like 'The ID of the ...' for multiple parameters, making it slightly verbose. Overall, it is well-organized and each sentence adds value, but could be more concise.

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?

Given 9 parameters (2 required) and an existing output schema, the description thoroughly explains all parameters and the return structure (items and nextToken for pagination). It does not cover error conditions or when to use the next_token parameter, but it provides sufficient context for the agent to invoke the tool 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides detailed parameter documentation including constraints (e.g., max_results 1-50, default 50; name 0-64 chars), valid values (sort_by: 'NAME'; sort_order: 'ASCENDING'/'DESCENDING'; type: list of enumerated values), and explanations for each parameter. This goes far beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 explicitly uses the verb 'lists' and the resource 'connections in Amazon DataZone', making the tool's purpose very clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_data_sources and list_domains by specifying 'DataZone connections' and the context 'in the DataZone MCP server'.

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 description states it is 'specifically for listing DataZone connections' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_connection or search. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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