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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it explains why readOnlyHint is false despite this being a 'test' tool (a live probe may renew an expiring OAuth token), and reassures that no settings or lists are modified. It also discloses that the probe goes out to the external ESP, matching openWorldHint=true and giving the agent the consequence of the call.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the two caveats an agent needs (no lasting changes, possible token renewal). Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally indicate what a probe returns (success/failure detail, error semantics for an invalid credential). That is the one remaining gap for a otherwise well-covered two-parameter tool.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The endpoint template hints that type and id are path segments, but the description adds no new meaning about their format or constraints.

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 — a live credential probe for a stored connection — and pins it down with the concrete endpoint POST /v1/integrations/{type}/connections/{id}/test. The line 'Changes no settings or lists' implicitly separates it from mutation siblings like update_settings and resync_integration.

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?

Makes the use case clear (validate that stored credentials still work) and adds cost context with 'Free.', which affects whether an agent calls it speculatively. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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