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

Despite idempotent and read/write hints being present in annotations, the description adds useful context: it records the assistant and time, exposes this on the app's API & MCP page, and is free/costs no credits. It also clarifies that repeated calls just refresh the record. This goes beyond the annotation 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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then usage windows, side effects, and idempotent behavior. Each sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary padding.

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 low-complexity confirmation tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what matters: when to call it, what it records, its idempotency, and its cost profile.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the `agent` parameter, its allowed values, and normalization behavior. The description only mentions that the assistant is recorded, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 the exact action ('Confirms the connection works') and resource ('tells 1Lookup which AI assistant connected'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling verification/lookup tools, which serve other purposes.

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 invocation moments: as a first action after connecting and whenever the user asks to confirm or check the 1Lookup connection. It does not list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated categories, and this guidance is concrete enough.

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