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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral framing that this is a live diagnostic probe rather than a configuration read, though it says nothing about freshness or caching of the availability state.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place, with the diagnostic purpose front-loaded before the failure trigger. No redundant restatement of the title.

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 values need no explanation, and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only gap is the absence of a next-step hint for an agent that finds a platform disabled, which is minor for a read-only status check.

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% and the single organizationId parameter already carries its conditional requirement rule (required for multi-org connections, omitted otherwise). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Report which platforms are currently disabled or under maintenance.' That scope is naturally distinct from the connection-listing sibling list_platform_connections and from the post-mutation siblings, though the description never names an adjacent tool to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Check this if publishing to a platform is failing unexpectedly' gives a concrete diagnostic trigger, which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of a when-not clause or a follow-up path (e.g., whether to use retry_post or reschedule_post once a platform is confirmed down).

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