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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the output states (connected, not_connected, not_available) and that a reason is provided for not_available, plus 'free'. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral detail beyond the structured data.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the output semantics, then gives usage guidance, and ends with read-only/free. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 listing tool, the description is complete: it covers what is returned, the possible states, the reason field, and when to use it. No output schema exists, so the description fully carries the burden and does so effectively.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool lists and what the state values represent. There is no parameter information to compensate for, and the description fully serves that role.

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 clearly states that the tool lists which growth data sources (GA4, Search Console, Google Business Profile) and distribution channels (LinkedIn/Reddit) are connected, and that each row carries a state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_connection or disconnect_connection, which perform actions rather than list status.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Read before start_connection so you never offer a connection that cannot be made', which tells the agent when to use this tool relative to a specific sibling. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like poll_connection, so it stops short of a full 5.

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