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

Annotations already provide read-only, non-destructive, idempotent safety traits. The description adds valuable context about the output (connected vs missing integrations) and explicitly notes 'Read-only', which aligns with annotations. No contradictions; the extra detail on what the tool returns goes beyond the 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Returns', and uses a dash to add essential detail without verbosity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, strong safety annotations, no output schema), the description provides a complete enough picture: what the tool does, for whom, and what kind of result to expect. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by describing the kind of information returned (readiness status, connected/missing integrations), which helps the agent understand the tool's output.

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 that the tool returns BYOA integration readiness for the authenticated business, specifying the resource (integration readiness) and the scope (what is connected and how to connect what is missing). It distinguishes itself from sibling connect_* tools by being a read-only status check rather than an actual connection action.

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 establishes a clear context for use: checking what integrations are connected and what needs to be connected. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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