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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the return content (version, connected, last ping), which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about freshness, scope, or what 'connected: false' implies.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields listed in order; no filler, no redundancy. Everything present earns its place.

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 must carry return-value burden, and it does list the key fields. However, it is ambiguous whether this returns one EA status or a status for every account (the 'per account' phrasing with zero parameters implies all accounts but never says so), and it omits any note on data freshness or aggregation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a specific resource (EA status per account) and enumerates the fields returned (version, connected, last ping), so an agent knows what data it gets. It lacks an explicit verb and never differentiates itself from siblings like accounts or me, and the acronym 'EA' is never expanded.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools (accounts, me, recent_signals), and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the health/connectivity check tool from the returned field names alone.

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