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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral substance beyond them: the permission-based visibility filter, the equivalence of 'not shared' and 'does not exist', the meaning of access_expires_at being null, and the conditional presence of the primary marker. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Scope and visibility constraint are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence carries information. Some of the middle content enumerates return fields (identifiers, labels, symbol, mode, running, permissions), which is partly redundant given an output schema exists, so the text runs slightly longer than necessary.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations and an output schema already in place, the description covers the only remaining risk areas: what is in scope, why something may be missing, and how to read the expiry and primary fields. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret its output is absent.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly spends no words on 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists the GridBot AI runtimes this connection may use') and immediately bounds the scope to grids where the account owner granted a still-active permission. No sibling tool (get_status, list_orders, list_history) overlaps with this resource, so an agent can route to it without opening the 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?

The description supplies the essential interpretive context: only shared grids appear, and an unshared grid is indistinguishable from a nonexistent one, which tells the agent how to read an empty or partial result. It does not name alternatives or state an explicit when-not condition, but there is no competing runtimes-listing sibling to disambiguate against.

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