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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description still adds real context beyond them: the OAuth vs API-key provider distinction, the masked in-thread key field, and that the key is never returned (you only see connected true/false). That is useful non-obvious behavior and not a restatement of the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability, then use cases, then the [[connect:]] mechanics. It is long and the final clauses about API keys and per-message limits are dense, but every sentence carries operational value; minor trimming is possible but nothing is filler.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned signals: connected/not-connected plus flowing/quiet/error, last event, 7-day event count and error message. An agent knows both when to call it and how to interpret and act on the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'company' param is documented in the schema (name or id, omit for default, cross-reference to list_companies). The description adds nothing new about the parameter itself, so this sits at the baseline-with-schema ceiling rather than earning a 5.

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 ('See every integration for this company and user in one call') and enumerates the scope: connected providers, available-but-unconnected, and feed health. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_accounts_status, get_gifi_status and get_reconciliation_status, which concern ledger/account state rather than third-party connections.

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?

Explicit triggers are given ('when the user asks about connections or channels', 'when something they need is not connected', 'when their data looks stale or missing'), plus the diagnostic rationale that a dead feed is often the cause of missing data. It also gives concrete operational rules: one connection offer per message, end with [[connect: provider_id]], never ask for the key in chat.

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