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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'No secrets' clarifies what is not returned, the auth requirements specify acceptable credentials and that no extra scope is needed, and 'Roles and quotas still apply' discloses access/limit caveats. This meaningfully exceeds the annotation surface.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verification action followed by constraints and auth requirements. Every sentence carries distinct information (content, secret exclusion, credential/scope rules). The telegraphic style is dense but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a no-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, triggering condition, credential requirements, and the absence of secrets—leaving little an agent needs that is missing, though it could more explicitly state it returns identity/auth state rather than validating remote state.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not belabor an empty schema.

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 the specific resource and scope: server-confirmed agent_id/name, scopes, scope-authorized tools, and token/connection expiry. The verb 'Verify' plus the enumerated content makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_resume_context or get_help. It stops short of a crisp 'retrieves your current connection/identity info' framing, so it is clear but not maximally direct.

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 an explicit triggering condition: call it 'before reusing access or publishing,' which tells the agent when this is warranted. It also states eligibility ('Any valid agent key or MCP OAuth connection; no extra scope'). It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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