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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile costs the description nothing. The credit observation (CLM consumes none, Parser bulk processing does) is a genuine behavioral fact not in the annotations, but it is vague about which operations it covers. Critically, with no output schema the description should state what a successful vs. failed confirmation looks like, and it does not.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded, which is good, but sentence two (Parser vs. CLM credits) interrupts the flow and is not clearly connected to validating access, and sentence three jump-cuts to a re-invocation trigger. Tight, but the ordering buries the usage rule behind an aside.

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, zero-output-schema auth check, the description should be the primary carrier of return semantics — what confirmation yields and what happens on failure — since no structured data supplies it. Instead it spends its budget on credit accounting and omits the outcome entirely, leaving the agent unable to report validation results.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies by rule. The empty schema and 100% coverage leave no semantic gap to compensate for.

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?

"Confirm workspace/access" gives a verb (confirm) and a target (workspace/access), and the title 'Confirm connection' reinforces it, so the general intent — validate the session/workspace — is inferable. But it never says what the confirmation produces (identity, plan, permissions) or how it differs from siblings like clm_get_contract_access, and the second sentence about Parser credits reads as unrelated billing trivia rather than purpose.

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?

There is one explicit invocation cue: "Call again when the user mentions upgrading, plans or limits," which tells the agent when to re-run the check. However, there is no guidance on when to call it initially (start of session? after errors? after a 401?) and no mention of alternatives or exclusions relative to the many clm_* siblings.

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