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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, and the description adds meaningful detail about what is reported: the authenticated email, ut:read/ut:write scopes, and workspace read capacity. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior beyond the annotation alone.

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 no filler. It front-loads the core report content and immediately follows with the intended use case, making every word valuable.

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-parameter, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive and why it might call the tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a solid score; the description appropriately focuses on outputs instead.

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 uses the specific verb 'Reports' and names exact outputs: the authenticated account email, granted scopes, and workspace read count. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on tasks, use cases, or workspaces.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to check what this connection is allowed to do,' giving an agent a clear trigger for invoking the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well defined and self-contained.

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