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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's safety claim is partly redundant. However, it adds valuable return context: the response includes roles, tool counts, next steps, and guide_repo/guide_entry/guide_version. This is useful behavioral detail beyond annotations, with no contradiction.

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 trigger are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The description is slightly longer than necessary, with a repo URL and an English keyword list appended, but these extras do not obscure the main guidance.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does: roles, tool counts, next step, and guide fields. It also covers the zero-param safety profile via annotations. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and invoke this tool.

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 the schema is empty, so no parameter semantics are needed. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description does not need to add param details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Zeigt den Auth-Zustand dieser Verbindung') and enumerates exactly what is reported: token validity, roles, and the next step. It is clearly distinct from siblings like login, refresh_access_token, and register, which it names as alternative paths.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Nuetzlich, wenn unerwartet wenige Tools sichtbar sind'. It also names the alternatives (login, refresh_access_token, register) and the outcome of following that path, leaving no ambiguity about when to call this tool.

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