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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful authorization context ('Owner only') and entitlement context (included with a Conciergr plan, not sold separately), though it does not spell out the return type or error behavior.

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 definition is short and front-loads the core answer, with no filler. One clause, 'connecting you needs none,' is grammatically unclear and slightly undermines the otherwise tight structure.

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?

For a zero-parameter boolean entitlement check with no output schema, the description covers what is being checked, who can call it, and the plan condition. It is nearly complete, though it could be clearer about the returned value and the ambiguous connection clause.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and schema coverage is already 100%. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 states that the tool reports whether the business has API access, which is specific enough to separate it from key-management siblings like list_api_keys and revoke_api_key. It does not use an explicit verb such as 'returns' and does not name an alternative tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives useful context that API access comes with a Conciergr plan, is not sold separately, and is owner-only, which implies when the check is relevant. However, it never states when to use this instead of list_api_keys or other account/settings tools, and the phrase 'connecting you needs none' is too ambiguous to serve as usage guidance.

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