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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the outcome taxonomy (no credential, expired, revoked, malformed, wrong environment, or server-side problem), states that calling with no credential is a normal false result rather than an error, and explicitly says the tool never accepts or echoes the token itself.

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?

The description is longer than a simple statement, but it is front-loaded with the key directive and each sentence contributes: when to use it, why account.* presence semantics are misleading, what it returns, and its safe no-credential behavior. It is verbose but high-signal.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent a complete mental model: what triggers a false result, what a true result includes, and that calling it safely requires no credentials or token input. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without needing further docs.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is little to explain. The one relevant semantic constraint—that no token is accepted and the caller should not pass one—is explicitly covered, which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool's job: verify a connection is actually authenticated, and explicitly specifies the two result shapes (connected:false with a reason, or connected:true with scopes and expiry). It also positions itself as 'THE TOOL TO USE before assuming a connection is authenticated', distinguishing it from help-only sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call before assuming a connection is authenticated. It also tells the agent why account.* tools are insufficient (they register on presence, not validity) and that this is the one real check, making the decision between this and the credential-presence tools explicit.

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