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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: OAuth 'account:read' consent, unmetered calls, and the fact that only the current verified connection is returned and discovery cannot grant access. However, several sentences (expired cursors, foreign or deleted targets, invalid fields) describe failure modes that cannot occur for a zero-parameter read, which weakens rather than sharpens the behavioral picture.

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 purpose and the sibling hand-off are correctly front-loaded, but the description then runs on through boilerplate that does not apply to a no-argument read tool: cursor expiry, invalid fields, foreign or deleted targets, provider failures, and a long negation list of prices/inventory/orders/automation. Roughly half the text could be deleted without losing information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still names the Shared MCP Baseline envelope with scope, provenance, unknowns and typed errors. Auth requirement, read-only character and unmetered behavior are all covered; nothing essential for calling this tool 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing to disambiguate, so the baseline of 4 applies. The only parameter-adjacent sentence, 'Supply only the fields in its strict input schema,' adds no meaning since the schema defines no fields.

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 ('Check current connection authority and approved-store access') and immediately separates itself from the sibling that covers provider health ('provider health requires the separate integration tool'). An agent can distinguish this from supercatch_get_integration_health or supercatch_get_capabilities without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes provider-health questions to the separate integration tool and frames this as the read for the connected account, which is real when-to-use/when-not guidance. It offers no guidance on the many other sibling tools (capabilities, context, api catalog), but the key alternative is named.

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