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

Clearly describes the tool's read-only nature ('Read-only'), output ('returns provider status and browser-only connect/reconnect guidance'), and what it does not return ('without exposing credentials'). This goes beyond the basic information and sets proper expectations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Every word contributes value: purpose, timing, read-only nature, output, and alternatives. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Covers the essential context: when to use, what it does, what it returns, and its limitations. It does not mention potential error cases or what happens if no providers are connected, but for a simple read-only listing tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to act correctly.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (provider and include_guidance) with value hints and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance it. However, the mention of providers in the purpose gives slight context, so not a 2.

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: describes when to use (user asks whether GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, or Azure DevOps is connected, or asks which imported repository records exist) and distinguishes from sibling tools that list repositories or manage connections. Clear and unambiguous.

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 'Use this when...' and provides alternative guidance: 'Use repository-link tools for Space Autopilot links.' This gives clear direction on when to use this tool versus others, leaving nothing to inference.

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