dbconvert_get_connection

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

Beyond the safe-read annotations, the description provides critical behavioral context: credentials are structurally absent, not redacted, and impossible to retrieve through MCP. It also warns the agent to report only fields present in the response, which aligns with the openWorldHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two tight sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the security caveat is concisely stated without redundancy.

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 simple get-by-id tool with an output schema, safe-read annotations, and a single documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not point the agent to the sibling list tool as a source for obtaining a connectionId.

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 100% and the single parameter connectionId is already described in the schema as 'Stored DBConvert connection ID'. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), names the resource ('one connection'), and enumerates exactly what fields are returned. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by focusing on a single connection rather than listing data sources.

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 makes clear this tool targets one specific connection, which implies when to use it versus listing tools. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling dbconvert_list_data_sources or state when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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