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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well by disclosing a critical behavioral constraint: it never returns the Connect ID itself. It also clarifies what the output contains (setup location and ID-finding instructions), making the tool's behavior predictable.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The use case is front-loaded, the required action is clear, and the critical limitation is stated up front, making every sentence earn its place.

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 a single simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly: what input to provide, what will be returned, and what will not be returned. It could add error-case behavior or exact response shape, but it is sufficient for this tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the email parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description only restates 'account email' without adding extra format, constraints, or edge-case guidance, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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's function: given an email, it returns the human's setup stage and instructions for locating their Connect ID. It also explicitly states what the tool does NOT do, which distinguishes it from related tools like get_agent_status or get_onboarding_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?

The opening 'Lost the Connect ID (agent_id)?' provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the explicit statement that it never returns the Connect ID itself implies when not to use it and instructs the agent to ask the human to paste the ID instead.

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