get_service_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral details such as pagination semantics ('cursor', 'limit', default page size 50, max 200) and the resolution behavior of site/element ('resolved the same way as find_site'). This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 concise yet complete, structured as a docstring with a clear summary and an Args section. Each sentence earns its place, particularly the explanation of operation-specific requirements and pagination. It is appropriately sized for a tool with multiple read modes.

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 tool with 6 parameters and 8 distinct operations, the description provides thorough guidance on operation selection, parameter requirements, and pagination. The main omission is the 'detail' parameter, which remains undocumented in both the description and schema. With an output schema present, return values are covered, so the description is largely 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 schema already provides descriptions for 5 of 6 parameters (83% coverage), meeting the high-coverage baseline. The description further adds value by explaining operation-specific parameter dependencies and listing the exact operation enum values. However, the 'detail' parameter is completely omitted from the description, which is a minor gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and lists distinct resources: service connections, endpoints, binding maps, service labels, and extensions. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_routing or get_network_services, which focus on other aspects.

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 provides clear context for when to use each operation, explicitly stating which parameters are required for certain operations (e.g., 'Requires site: site_connections, site_extensions'). It does not, however, explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the operation enum itself acts as a selector, making usage clear.

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