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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's trailing "Read-only" is largely redundant. What it does add beyond the annotations is the shape of the result — a one-line Spanish summary plus lists of missing sources and sync errors — which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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 the action and scope, then routing guidance, with no filler. The only wasted word is the closing "Read-only," which merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 summariser with no output schema, the description covers the covered sources, the language of the output, and the extra lists returned. The one residual ambiguity is whether the return is a flat string or a structured object containing the line plus the missing-source and sync-error arrays.

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-completeness baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning because there is none to add; it correctly reads as a no-argument call.

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 verb and resource — summarising the player's data connections (RFEG, Garmin, TrackMan, Strava, app, WAGR) into a single Spanish-language line — and enumerates the sources covered. It is clearly distinguishable from get_connections (per-connection detail) and connect_link (linking a missing source), which share the same domain.

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 names the use case ("quick status") and routes to both relevant alternatives: get_connections for per-connection details and connect_link for linking a missing source. The agent has a complete decision rule without needing to inspect other schemas.

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