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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds useful context beyond the annotation by specifying the exact data domains returned ('contract, limits and retention policy') and noting the information is 'public', which implies no special access requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every element adds meaning, and the core action ('Read') appears first.

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?

Given the zero-parameter input schema, the existing readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke the tool. Nothing important 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?

The tool has zero parameters)SkipValue baseline 4. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and it clearly describes the object of the read operation.

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 ('Read') and names a distinct resource ('public connection contract, limits and retention policy'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_mailbox or get_task, which target different resources.

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?

The description clearly indicates this is for reading connection-related contract, limits, and retention information by making the resource explicit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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