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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds real value: it discloses the auth precondition ('Requires the connected identity') and that the response excludes credentials, which is a security-relevant trait not captured by any annotation.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. The final sentence ('Requires the connected identity') partially restates the first, which is the only minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does: identity, granted scopes, session expiry, and auth state without credentials. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs.

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 (Read) and resource (connected identity) and enumerates what comes back: granted scopes and session expiry. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent read tools such as check_connection or get_agent_profile.

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?

'Requires the connected identity' is a precondition, not a when-to-use rule. It offers no condition for choosing this over check_connection, check_contribution_connection, or get_agent_profile, leaving selection to inference.

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