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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact categories of connection capabilities reported, such as current rate-limit headroom and cross-store availability, which goes beyond the generic title and 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently lists the tool's output categories without filler or redundancy. Every phrase adds information, making the description easy to parse and acting on.

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 parameters, an output schema, and a read-only/idempotent annotation profile, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The enumerated result categories fully convey what the tool will report, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 ('Report') and precisely identifies the resource: this connection's plan tier, available history, cross-store availability, rate-limit headroom, and data limits. It clearly differentiates this introspection tool from the many data-oriented sibling tools by enumerating exactly what capability information is returned.

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 implies a clear use case—checking connection capabilities like rate-limit headroom and data limits—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_integration_status or get_mca_status. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, so usage guidance is left to inference.

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