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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description does add genuine scope context — results are metadata/approved fields only, excluding secrets, contacts and original files — but says nothing about what 'authorised' status means or how paging behaves despite limit/offset params.

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 compact clauses with the scope constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded. The 'through the existing application' clause is the only near-filler, since it conveys no actionable information.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate on privacy scope but leaves out what a returned status actually contains (provider, connected/disconnected, expiry) and how list-style parameters bound the response. An agent could invoke it, but not predict what it gets back.

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 0% for three parameters (limit, query, offset), and the description does not compensate: it never says what 'query' filters over, what the maximum page size implies, or how offset interacts with results. All semantics must be guessed from the field names.

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 verb+resource: reading 'calendar connection status'. It is distinguishable from the many get_*_integration_status siblings by the 'calendar' qualifier, though the phrase 'through the existing application' is vague and adds little.

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 no guidance on when to call this versus the numerous sibling integration-status tools, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., whether a calendar must already be linked). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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