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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the three possible status values, a dashboard setup URL, and the connectFailureMessage / isAlwaysAvailable / isSettingsManaged fields. It does not cover auth requirements or whether the check is cached, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return values, error semantics, flag meanings, and the exclusion — five compact sentences with no filler or repetition. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return contract itself: the status enum, the setup URL, connectFailureMessage, and the two boolean flags. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering inputs, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, with both projectId and integrationKey documented in the schema itself (including an example value 'figma'). The description adds no format, default, or lookup guidance for the parameters, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven params 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check one integration's connection status in the selected Replo project') and scopes it to a single integration within a project. It also distinguishes itself from the account-mutation siblings with 'This tool does not connect an account or change permissions,' so an agent can separate it from connect_replo_account without opening either schema.

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 closing sentence gives a clear when-not ('does not connect an account or change permissions'), which is a useful exclusion in a toolset full of connect_* and update_* siblings. However, it never names the alternative tool an agent should call to actually connect or re-authorize, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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