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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive intent, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the valuable behavioral facts that the call requires no authentication and never errors, which are not visible in the annotations and materially affect whether an agent chooses to call it speculatively.

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 cover purpose, invocation timing, and behavioral guarantees with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 no parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient: an agent knows what it does, when to call it, and what to expect regarding auth and errors. The only minor wrinkle is referencing account_get, but that does not undermine completeness.

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 is already complete; the 0-parameter baseline applies. The description has no parameter content to add, but none 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it checks whether the connector is signed in as a ZenSched org. This clearly marks it as a status probe rather than an account mutation or recovery action, which distinguishes it from siblings like account_create and account_signin_start.

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 gives explicit placement guidance ('Call this before account_get in a new session'), so an agent knows when it should be invoked. It does not contrast directly against the listed auth siblings or state when not to use it, but the placement plus 'unauthenticated' makes the condition reasonably clear.

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