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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful scope context—live sync, enrichment progress, and writeback—but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as latency, staleness, or authorization requirements. The annotation coverage makes this acceptable but not exceptional.

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 focused sentences: the first front-loads the action, resource, and scope, and the second provides practical usage examples. There is no redundant wording or repetition of annotation or schema data.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it specifies what the tool reads, what components are covered, and when to call it. The agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional clarification.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent. The description is not required to explain parameters and does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read live pipeline status for the merchant's shop' and enumerates the exact pipeline components (sync, enrichment with progress, writeback). It is clearly distinct from sibling status tools like get_google_connect_status and get_meta_connect_status, which focus on connection state rather than overall pipeline progress.

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 description gives explicit example triggering queries: 'is anything running?' or 'how far along is enrichment?' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the tool's narrow scope makes the examples sufficient.

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