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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: one connection can serve several agents, the returned profile fields, and the operational constraint that disconnected agents are refused until reconnected in Rithmo.

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?

The description is three tight sentences and front-loads the main action and output fields. The follow-on routing guidance and disconnected-agent caveat are both relevant and compact.

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-argument, read-only discovery tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what is returned, how to use the result, and how disconnected agents affect subsequent calls.

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 no parameters, so the parameter baseline is high. The description explicitly confirms that it takes no arguments, which is consistent and useful, though there is no additional parameter nuance to document.

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: listing the agent profiles owned on the connection, including `agent_key`, purpose, and owner. It also distinguishes the tool from downstream siblings such as `get_my_setup`, `check_premises`, and `verify_premises`, so an agent can identify the right starting point.

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 to call this first to discover which agent to act as, then pass the chosen `agent_key` to `get_my_setup` and related premise tools. It also explains how to interpret `disconnected_agents` and why those agents cannot be used until reconnected.

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