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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a privacy/behavioral trait ('Never returns the URL') and that a missing connection is a normal, expected state rather than an error. It does not clarify the return shape (boolean vs status string) or failure behavior, which a status tool with no output schema would benefit from.

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, no padding, with the core status semantics and the remediation step both front-loaded. The only minor inefficiency is the fragment-style opening, but it is compact and readable.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the call determines (connection state) and what the agent should do with a negative result. Return value detail is the only gap, and it is minor for a single-purpose 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the check is context-derived (the current user's connection).

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 check (whether the user has connected their own Google Sheet / Apps Script web app) and ties it to the sibling tool run_sheet_action that consumes it. It is clear what the tool returns, though the opening is a sentence fragment ('Whether the user...') rather than a direct verb-resource statement.

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 post-result guidance ('If not connected, tell them to add their web-app URL in Sorsa Settings'), which is actionable. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus run_sheet_action (e.g. 'call this first to verify connection before triggering'), leaving the usage condition implied rather than stated.

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