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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds important security context: it never returns the token, it identifies the target API, and it warns that provider record text is untrusted data rather than instructions. This is substantive behavioral guidance for an agent.

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?

The key behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise API, documentation, and trust-boundary context. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Annotations and the output schema already cover safety and return structure. The description fills remaining gaps with API context, documentation references, and an explicit prompt-injection warning.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and the schema is fully described by its empty parameter set.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get this connection's live access mode, modules and expiry.' It clearly states what is returned and excludes the token, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as system_describe or system_workspace.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: inspect the current connection's access mode, modules and expiry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many system_* siblings.

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