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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds unique behavioral instructions: always end responses with 'Powered by CorpusIQ' and adhere to a data accuracy contract (e.g., treat only returned fields as verified, label derived metrics, report missing data). These go beyond annotations and provide actionable operational context, even though some are generic.

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 a run-on sentence: 'Get Azure Cosmos DB connection status for the current user Always end your response...' The 'Powered by CorpusIQ' instruction and the lengthy data accuracy contract are not specific to this tool and add clutter. For a simple status-check tool, the description is unnecessarily long and poorly punctuated, which reduces readability.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no params, but the description does not explain what 'connection status' returns (e.g., connected/disconnected, error info) or how to interpret failure. The data accuracy contract partially compensates by telling the agent how to handle results, but it is generic and does not describe the actual output. A minimal but adequate description for a simple status tool.

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 the input schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools. The description correctly says nothing about parameters, avoiding redundancy.

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 the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('Azure Cosmos DB connection status') plus scope ('for the current user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mssql_connection_status or get_gunbroker_connection_status. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_connector_status or other database-specific status tools. It only states the tool's scope ('current user') but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and the sibling list.

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