List connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the returned 'mode' is the EFFECTIVE MCP read-only/read-write mode, 'prod' env warrants extra care, plus a writes_enabled_in_mcp flag and an explicit no-pagination guarantee. It stops short of stating auth requirements or how often the list can change, so not a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, usage ordering, then return shape and caveats. The inline table schema is dense but each element (mode semantics, prod warning, no pagination) earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns and does so (fields, effective mode, writes_enabled_in_mcp, no pagination). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema; the description correctly spends no space on parameters and instead explains the shape of what comes back.

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 ('List the user's saved database connections exposed to MCP') and scopes it to what MCP exposes, which cleanly separates it from data-inspection siblings like databases/tables/query.

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?

'Call this first to get the exact connection names every other tool requires' gives explicit ordering guidance and the reason to prefer this tool over guessing names elsewhere. That is actionable when-to-use routing, not implied usage.

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