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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioural context beyond that: which credential backed the connection and what scope limits apply, which shapes how the agent should interpret permission failures later. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the prose partly covers the payload.

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?

It is short, but the first clause ('Which Apogee account and permissions this connection uses') and the second sentence restate the same subject, producing redundancy rather than front-loaded structure. The phrase 'check the connection with it first' is also grammatically awkward and slightly muddies the ordering advice.

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 zero-parameter, read-only identity probe with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what identity is reported, what credential class, and what scopes. An agent knows enough to call it correctly and to interpret a permission-denied result as a scope issue.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and it correctly implies the call is argument-free.

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 states concretely what the tool returns: the Apogee account the connection acts as, the credential type (AI assistant connection vs API key), and the permitted scopes. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_overview or get_business_profile, though it never names a verb such as 'retrieve' and opens with an interrogative phrasing rather than an action.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering instruction ('check the connection with it first'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to other calls. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so there is nothing about sibling disambiguation.

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