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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the specific permission check (tweet.write) and user scoping ('this OrbitX user'), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or edge cases, so it remains minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is free of filler and gets straight to the point, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to call it correctly. It states what it shows and the user scope. The lack of return format details is minor given the simplicity and the safety guarantees from annotations.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter authCode, with a detailed explanation of the auth contract. The description itself mentions no parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic load.

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's purpose: to show X connection status and tweet.write permission for the current user. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resources ('X is connected' and 'tweet.write is granted'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orbitx__orbitx_x_connect.

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 usage context (checking connectivity and permissions before tweeting) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It is clear enough that an agent would know when to call this status-check tool, but it lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on when to prefer a sibling.

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