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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable scope: it enumerates what the response reveals (acting identity, visible companies, data kinds, write capability, source freshness, metric catalog), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention staleness of the identity cache or caching behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Start here,' and dense with useful specifics. The second sentence is a long but justified enumeration of return contents; no filler.

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 convey what the tool returns, and it does so comprehensively: identity, scope, capabilities, freshness, metric catalog. For a zero-parameter discovery tool with annotations, this is nearly complete. It could mention the metric catalog's structure or format but is otherwise sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needn't explain inputs, and it correctly focuses on outputs.

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 purpose: returns the identity the connection acts for, its scope of access, capabilities, and metric catalog. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_overview or get_activity, which fetch data rather than describe the connection itself.

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 'Start here' is an explicit when-to-use directive, positioning this as the first call before other operations. No alternative tool serves this discovery purpose, so the guidance is complete.

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