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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description complements this by clarifying the access restriction, cross-tenant scope, and the exact set of returned insights: per-dataset sync time/status/error, staleness, connection verdicts, auto-sync state, and AI client connection history. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but well front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. Every clause contributes meaningful information, including usage constraints and parameter guidance. It is somewhat long, but the density justifies the length.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what the tool returns and what it excludes. It covers access level, scope, operational nature, and parameter intent. Minor omissions like pagination or empty-result behavior are not critical for selecting and calling this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a useful example for new_within_days and lists the parameter names, but it does not substantially deepen the meaning of user_id or seller_connection_id 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: a per-connection health check for onboarding and sync status across all tenants. It states the specific question it answers, the datasets involved, and the output verdicts. It also distinguishes itself from financial/reporting siblings by explicitly saying it carries no revenue, units, margins, ASINs, or emails.

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 strong context: it is super-admin only, operational only, and suitable for triaging recent sign-ups via new_within_days with an example. It implies when not to use it by excluding non-operational data, though it does not name specific alternative sibling tools.

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