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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful semantic framing about two health dimensions, but says nothing about return format, freshness, or what 'health' concretely means beyond the connection state.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is shown, followed by the key caveat. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably frames the two things the result covers, which is enough for a zero-parameter read tool. It stops short of describing what fields or statuses 'health' and 'readiness' actually surface.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface the description needs to explain.

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 ('show') and resource ('connected sender health') and splits it into two scopes: account-wide connection health versus per-campaign assignment readiness. That scoping makes the tool's identity clear without naming a specific sibling, so it falls just short of 5.

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 line 'An account-wide connection does not prove a campaign has a usable sender' implies you call this before trusting a sender for campaign work, but it never states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g. get_access or list_campaigns) nor any exclusions.

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