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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains the tool reads AlphaBridge Connect's own record without contacting any site, that each call mints a fresh ten-minute disconnect link, that the previous link is invalidated, that confirming the old link voids the new one, and that the connection only ends after browser confirmation. Those are the kind of irreversible, stateful mechanics an agent cannot infer from the destructiveHint alone.

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 core purpose comes first, followed by the return shape, then usage, then the link lifecycle. The single dense run-on listing all returned fields is heavy, but every clause carries operational meaning and there is no 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, so the description documents the JSON answer field by field (label, address, CMS/version, plugin edition, scope, status/last_error/last_ok_at, linked_since, taken_out, disconnect_url). It also covers the destructive path end to end, so nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description states 'Takes no arguments' explicitly, which matches the empty schema and closes any doubt.

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: reports reachable sites and returns a one-time link that ends the connection. The disconnect side effect is named up front, which distinguishes it from connect_add_site and from all the wp_* per-site tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly gives two use cases: checking which sites are connected and why one fails, and ending the connection with every site in it. It does not name a sibling as an alternative or state when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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