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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds useful context about what specific status information is returned (plan, interactions, widget, knowledge). However, it doesn't disclose whether this makes any network calls, whether the status could be stale, or what happens if the account is not connected. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Shows the connected ORYKSA account') and then lists the specific data points. No wasted words, no repetition of the title.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent what information it will get. The only minor gap is not describing the format of the output (e.g., whether it's a summary or raw data), but with no output schema and a simple status tool, this is a minor omission.

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 has 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the tool reports, which is the closest thing to parameter semantics for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 for 0 params is correct.

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 clearly states the tool's function: showing the connected ORYKSA account status. It enumerates specific data points (plan, interactions left, widget availability, agent knowledge) and the verb 'Shows' is specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all mutation/setup tools, by being a read-only status view.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need account/agent status information, and the sibling list confirms it's the only read-only status tool among them. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context makes the usage clear: use this to check plan, interactions, widget availability, and agent knowledge.

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