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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is actually returned in each mode ('granted scopes', 'required scope', 'whether this connection can call it'), which is useful context beyond the 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and the conditional case second. Zero filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need spelling out, and the single enum param is fully documented. The only minor gap is that error behavior for an inaccessible tool (vs. a boolean/scope in the response) is left to the output schema.

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 enum is enumerated in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantic effect of supplying tool_name — it changes the return to that tool's required scope and a callable verdict — which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'omit to list all available tools'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show this connection's granted scopes and the tools it can use') and adds the conditional behavior for tool_name. No sibling tool does anything similar, so disambiguation is inherent.

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 makes the two modes explicit: call bare to list all available tools, or pass tool_name to check one tool's required scope and callability. It doesn't state when-not to use it (e.g., versus get_profile), but for a self-contained access-check tool the context is clear.

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