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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals a critical behavioral detail: it reports the specific failure where x-customer-id is pinned in default headers, which looks like success but destroys per-customer cost. This adds significant context about what the tool detects and why it matters, going well beyond the structured fields.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and checks, while the second adds a critical nuance. It is concise and well-structured, every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only status check with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main operational aspects: what it verifies, what it reports, and when to use it. It does not describe the exact return format, but for a check tool this is acceptable and not critical for correct invocation.

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 fully documents the single 'hours' parameter (default 24, range 1-720). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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: 'Verify a live integration' and enumerates exactly what it checks (calls arrived, recency, providers/models, attribution varying). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on integration health rather than budgets, spend, or policies, making it unambiguous.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this after wiring up an integration.' It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the unique purpose and the instruction to call after setup make the appropriate context clear. Lacks a 'when not to use' but this is minor given the tool's specificity.

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