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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the response carries a 'short note on what to do next' whose content varies by state (first-integration setup, setup awaiting a plan, items needing attention). It does not mention auth requirements, but for a zero-param read that is a minor omission.

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 routing guidance is correctly front-loaded, but the second sentence is a long run-on that drifts into describing what the plugin offers across 'its two products' — material that is tangential to invoking this tool and makes the response shape harder to parse. It is not padded with filler, but it is meaningfully longer than the task requires.

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 need no prose explanation, and the tool is a zero-parameter read. Everything an agent needs to decide to call it and to interpret the call is present, including the state-dependent content of the returned note.

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 no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 — 'know which CRM Connector account is connected' — and immediately enumerates what comes back (opaque id, organisation name, signed-in email). It explicitly separates itself from list_integrations and get_sync_health, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering contexts ('right after connecting', 'to tell two connected accounts apart') and an explicit exclusion clause naming the sibling tools to use instead for integrations and sync results. This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern at full strength.

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