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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful guarantee beyond them — that the token itself is never returned — which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before surfacing results. The bracketed '[scope: read]' merely restates readOnlyHint and adds nothing, and no error/disconnected-state behavior is described.

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?

A single short sentence with the key point (connection status) front-loaded, plus the privacy guarantee in parentheses. The trailing '[scope: read]' tag is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation and is the only wasted text.

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 trivial zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: it implies a boolean connection answer and rules out token exposure. It stops short of describing the disconnected/error case or the exact response shape, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 per the baseline this scores 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, leaving no ambiguity about inputs.

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 names a specific resource (Hetzner token) and the exact property being checked (connected or not), so an agent knows this is a credential/integration status probe rather than a data fetch. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cloudhosting_get_project_status or cloudhosting_get_account, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check before Hetzner-dependent operations, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or what to do instead. No alternative tool is named for related status questions.

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