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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it is a live check, returns a masked message that 'never contains secrets,' and precisely interprets 'not_connected' as never-completed authentication with the instruction not to try setting credentials. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then return shape, edge-case behavior, usage timing, exclusions, and parameter sourcing. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return structure ({connectionId, status, message}), status vocabulary, user routing for unauthenticated connections, and the relationship to sibling operations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is only 50% (connection_id documented, project_id not), but the description compensates fully. It states connection_id comes from get_order_overview and explains that project_id is optional unless project_id_required, in which case the agent should call list_projects. This is actionable meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Verify that a standalone order connection's saved credentials still work — a live connectivity/auth check right now,' which names a specific verb, resource, and immediate intent. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like test_ad_connection and test_marketplace_connection by the 'order connection' scope.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('before enabling it with configure_order_connection order_status:"active"') and when-not-to-use guidance ('do not run sync_project_orders for that'). It also defines the 'not_connected' edge case and directs the user to the Koongo UI instead of attempting credential setup via MCP, plus names list_projects as the fallback when project_id is required.

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