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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context: results describe 'this connection' rather than the account globally, and include which client type is presenting. No return format or size hints, but the surface is small.

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 sentence with the payload front-loaded (what is returned) followed by the usage cue. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

For a no-input, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it and what categories of information come back. A brief note on the response shape (single object vs list) would close the remaining gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by phrasing it as a pure introspection call.

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: reveals permission tiers, fine scopes, and connection client type (apikey vs OAuth client). This is clearly distinct from siblings like whoami (identity) or list_api_keys (key inventory), though it does not name those neighbors to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Call it before trying something that might be refused" gives an explicit pre-flight trigger for when to use it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. request_scopes for remediation) or stating when it is unnecessary.

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