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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-obvious context: the call is free (so it does not consume the very search quota it reports on) and it exposes the paid fair-use reset window, which is behavioral information not present in 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its cost profile, followed by when-to-call guidance. The middle list of returned fields is dense but each item is informative; only the clipped 'Free.' fragment slightly costs readability.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so for the main fields (connection status, email, plan, quota, reset window, upgrade links). It stops short of describing failure or not-connected responses in detail, but that is a minor gap for a simple read-only status check.

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?

There are no input parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description instead spends its words on return contents.

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 states a specific resource (the CxB account) and enumerates exactly what is reported: connection status, email, plan, free searches left, fair-use window and reopen time, and upgrade links. That is far more specific than the title and clearly distinct from siblings like get_job or get_request, though the verb framing ('Whether this AI is connected...') is less crisp than a direct 'Check account status'.

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?

It gives two concrete triggers: confirm a new connection works, and check remaining quota before telling the user what they have left. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool is named, but no plausible sibling overlap exists for a zero-param account check.

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