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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Check which services are connected,' which implies a read-only operation but does not clarify what 'connected' means, what response format to expect, or whether any side effects exist. The description is too thin to fully inform the agent.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not explain what 'services' are included, how the connection status is returned, or whether the user needs any setup. A more complete description would mention the response format or integration scope.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check which services are connected.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('services'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referring to the general state of connections rather than a specific service getter like get_slack or get_stripe.

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 implies usage for checking overall connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over specific service getters (e.g., get_slack). It lacks exclusionary guidance, but the intended use is reasonably inferable from the name and description.

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