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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the explicit security boundary 'Never keys or credentials' reassures the agent this is a safe inspection call that will not expose secrets. It does not describe failure modes when a source is disconnected, so not a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary subject (which sources are connected) and ending on the important security constraint. It is dense but every clause carries information; the enumerated return fields make it slightly heavy for a single sentence.

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 structure need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the payload contents and its limits. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the 'when to call it' angle is absent.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description appropriately spends no words on input syntax.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports: which revenue source (Stripe/RevenueCat/Superwall) and post source a workspace uses, connector health, last-update time, and how many posts' views are being read. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like campaign_health or get_latest_report. The verb is implied rather than stated (it never says 'returns' or 'reports'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a connected/authorized workspace), and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must infer that this is a diagnostic/status call to make before trusting other data tools.

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