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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that linked DMs receive copies of MCP tool results, which is useful context. It doesn't disclose what the return value looks like or whether it makes any network calls, but for a read-only status check the annotations carry much of the burden.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral consequence. It's efficient and every sentence earns its place, though the authCode parameter description in the schema is verbose and could be trimmed.

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 simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the consequence of being linked. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., boolean vs. status string), which an agent might need to interpret the result, and it doesn't mention whether the tool requires prior authentication.

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 100%, so the authCode parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but the schema's authCode description is unusually rich, covering the auth contract and accepted credentials. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool shows whether the OrbitX account is linked to @theorbitxmcpbot, and explains the consequence of linked DMs receiving copies of MCP tool results. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like orbitx__orbitx_telegram_cmds and orbitx__orbitx_x_status, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 this is a status-check tool for Telegram linking, and the readOnlyHint annotation supports that it's safe to call. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like orbitx__orbitx_telegram_cmds or orbitx__orbitx_x_connect, nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing an authenticated session.

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