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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the two conditions tested (token validity, account reachability). It does not describe the form of the result or what a failed check looks like, which would be the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the failure-path routing. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter read-only check with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, what is tested, and the recovery path, which is enough to call it correctly. It lacks any indication of the return value, which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single provider parameter is enumerated with a description, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no further detail about the provider value beyond what the enum supplies, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check whether a connected service still works') and immediately defines what 'works' means (token valid, account reachable), so the agent knows exactly what the tool verifies. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling get_connect_links, which is framed as the repair path rather than another check.

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 states the use case (verify a connection is still healthy) and gives an explicit follow-up action when the check fails ('call get_connect_links for that provider'). It doesn't state when to prefer this over other checks or how often to run it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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