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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds 'Read-only, cheap, no side effects' and explains nuanced behavioral output such as 'explicit company:null when unassigned' and the assignment-source enum. It does not contradict the annotations and provides context beyond the structured fields.

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 long but information-dense, with the core answer front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adding distinct value: usage triggers, return fields, alternatives, and safety profile. It earns its length, though it is slightly verbose with the repeated emphasis on account/workspace.

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 fully covers what the agent will receive: the human-readable account name/email, registration, machine label, bound company or null, assignment source, and active status. It also addresses common follow-up actions and relationship to connections_pulse, making the tool self-contained for correct invocation.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter schema for the description to compensate for. The description instead clarifies how to interpret the response's `say` line, which is the relevant semantic information for an agent calling this tool.

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 'WHICH ACCOUNT AND WHICH WORKSPACE THIS CONNECTION IS ON', a specific identity/inspection purpose that is instantly clear. It also names the returned binding details ('registration', 'company', 'assignment source') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from connections_pulse, making the scope unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Call it the moment the member wonders about either' with quoted user questions. It also names the exact corrective tools for wrong workspace (connections_switch_workspace) and wrong account (connections_signout), and tells the agent to prefer this tool over connections_pulse when only the binding is needed.

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