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

Since readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already establish safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the complete status vocabulary and what is included when active. It also notes the side-effect actions expected at certain states, going well beyond annotation-only info.

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 front-loaded with the core meaning and then packs each status value with its required follow-up in a tightly structured way. No sentence is wasted.

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 status tool, the description fully covers the return semantics and the actionable next steps for states that need them. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the inline enumeration of result states and their meaning.

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 input schema is empty with no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document beyond the baseline. The description's status branching compensates by explaining how the returned state drives subsequent tool selection.

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 states specifically what is being checked ('Where the Meta connection stands') and enumerates the possible statuses, so an agent can distinguish this from get_google_connect_status and connect_meta. It is a clear status-query verb-plus-resource definition.

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 conditional guidance: in selecting_business call pick_meta_business, in selecting_catalog call pick_meta_catalog, and in not_admin reconnect with the correct account. This tells the agent both when to use the tool and what action to take based on the result.

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