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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context about the reported data: account, shared spaces, last sync, and brain note count. It does not overpromise or hide side effects; for a read-only status tool, this is sufficient.

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 efficient sentences: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and data scope, the second gives a concrete usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant boilerplate.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is complete. It enumerates the outputs an agent can expect, explains when to invoke it, and the absence of an output schema is adequately compensated by the explicit field list.

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 and the schema is fully covered, so the baseline is 4. The description's content about what is reported compensates for the lack of an output schema, and no parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool reports Granola connection and sync status, listing specific data points: account, shared spaces, last sync time, and note count. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_granola_notes and search_granola_transcripts, which handle note content rather than status.

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?

Explicitly says to use it when a user asks why a meeting is missing or whether Granola is set up. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select this over related Granola tools.

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