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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the equivalent plain-HTTPS endpoint and auth method (GET /api/connection-status, project key as bearer) and explicitly states it returns no credentials, which matters for a status tool. It stops short of describing rate limits or pagination.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the supplemental detail (HTTPS equivalent, credential note, interpretation nuance) is relevant. Some phrasing ('What Boosthis knows about...') is indirect and the interpretive sentence is slightly verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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 burden of describing returns, and it does so competently: runtime, state, last-heard time, and their meaning. The read-only and no-credentials facts round out the picture for a simple one-param 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (repair_steps) is fully documented there, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions repair_steps or what the repair text contains, adding no meaning 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 (this account's installs) and enumerates what is reported: runtime, state, last-heard timestamp, and interpretation of that state. It clearly frames the tool as an 'is it working?' diagnostic, but it never names or distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like boosthis_verify_kit_install or boosthis_which_kits, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'It answers "is it working?" without guessing' and the note about distinguishing registered-but-never-measured installs from genuinely quiet apps. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, and no named sibling the agent should prefer for overlapping checks.

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