ods_connect_using_env

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

Annotations already carry the read/write/destructivity profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds meaningful behavior: lists three auth modes (basic, m2m, oidc), enumerates required variables, and documents the legacy pref ix fallback. 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 long but structured with intro, a listed env-var templates, and organized auth modes. However, the sentence about 'Supports three authentication modes via {prefix }_ODE or ODSBOXX_MCP_{prefix}_ODE' appears confusingly worded; the ODSBOXX_MCP_{prefix}_ODE form is redundant or erroneous, which wastes space and could mislead an agent.

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 the tool's auth complexity, the description covers defaults, env vars, mode selection, legacy fallback, and the relationship to ods_connect. Combined with the output schema and annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it. Minor gaps such as side effects or whether the connection must later be closed are left unspecified, but the sibling ods_disconnect and openWorld hint mitigate that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for env_prefix by explaining the default prefix (ODS box_MCP), the env var that can change it (ODS box_MCP_ENV_PREFIX), and how env_prefix interplays with the mode templates beyond the schema's bare 'override the environment variable pref ix'.

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, resource, and mechanism: 'Establish connection to ASAMOD server using environment variables.' It also tells the reader this is the env-var alternative to ods_connect, which distinguishes it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'This is an alternative to ods_connect for when you have an existing environment of ODS boxes variables.' It describes a default and fallback for auth modes, giving clear conditions for choosing this tool.

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