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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing the exact exclusions ('Never returns credentials or fingerprints'), that health is stored rather than live, that no provider request is made, and the required scopes (integrations:read, tickets:read). This is precisely the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the health caveat, the exclusion, and the permission requirement. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (labels, remote project, account identity, stored health, timestamps) and by covering permissions and data exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely and 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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It names the three providers in prose (GitHub, GitLab, Asana), matching the enum, but never explains that 'provider' is a required filter selector or what the enum does – so it adds only marginal value over the self-documenting enum.

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 ('List this owner's saved GitHub, GitLab or Asana connections') and pins the data source as 'the local record', which separates it from live-status siblings like check_ticket_provider_status. An agent can identify 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?

Gives clear usage context via 'from the local record', 'No provider request', and 'Health is the last recorded check, not live status' – effectively a when-not signal that steers the agent away from live-check tools. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls just under a 5.

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