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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds value beyond that: it names the fields surfaced on success and states that failures carry a user-actionable remediation message. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth requirements, but those are largely irrelevant for a no-arg key check.

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 short sentences: purpose first, execution ordering and failure handling second. No filler and no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information itself (platform, scopes, mode) plus error behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it first and how to interpret both outcomes.

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 schema carries nothing the description needs to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds implicit context that the call operates on ambient connector configuration rather than inputs.

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 ('Confirms this connector's test key works') and scopes it to the sandbox/test context, which separates it from all listed siblings that operate on goals, docs, or webhooks. It also previews the returned fields (platform, scopes, mode), so an agent knows exactly what the call answers.

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?

'Run it before the other sandbox tools' gives an explicit ordering constraint, and the failure clause explains what to do when it doesn't pass. No exclusions are stated, but for a zero-parameter validation call there is no meaningful alternative to disambiguate against.

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