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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses genuinely useful behavior: no secrets are returned, stale or absent validation surfaces as 'unknown', and no active validation or reconnection occurs. This is real added context, though it says nothing about result shape or limits.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the capability and then add the important caveats about staleness and side effects. No filler, though the opening 'Get connection health' fragment is slightly redundant with the following sentence.

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 does describe the substance of the return (token health, missing permissions, unknown status), which is a plus. But for a health-check tool the undocumented contentGroupId parameter and lack of any indication of result structure leave a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter contentGroupId is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no hint whether the UUID scopes the health check to one content group or is optional context, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: read saved token health and missing social permissions for connected accounts. It is clearly distinct from listAccounts or getAccountFollowers, though it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate itself from.

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 a clear exclusion — 'does not actively validate or reconnect accounts' — which tells the agent this is a passive read, not a fix. However, it names no alternative for agents that actually want to revalidate or reconnect, so the when-to-use routing is only implied.

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