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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'OPERATIONAL ONLY' and 'carries no revenue...'. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining verdict states, the search_query_performance block semantics ('never', 'probing'), and the scope across all tenants, which is important for a super-admin tool.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. It packs many details into one paragraph, but each detail is relevant to invocation or interpretation: scope, output blocks, parameter use, and exclusions. It is long but appropriately so for a tool with no output schema.

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 output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does: per-dataset sync time/status/error, stale status, per-connection verdict, auto-sync state, AI-client enrollment, and the search_query_performance block semantics. It also covers access scope and parameter intent, making it effectively complete for an agent to call and interpret.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a helpful example for new_within_days ('e.g. 7 to triage just this week's sign-ups') and implies the filter semantics of the other parameters, but it does not substantially go beyond the 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 states a specific resource (per-connection onboarding + sync health across all tenants) and a clear diagnostic purpose ('is that new sign-up's data actually flowing?'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its super-admin scope and operational-only data focus, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: triaging new sign-ups, checking per-connection sync health across all tenants, and using new_within_days for recent sign-ups. It also adds an important exclusion (no revenue/units/margins/ASINs/emails), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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