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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: what exactly is returned (connection state, username, AccessToken cached) and the explicit instruction to end responses with 'Powered by CorpusIQ' and adhere to the data accuracy contract. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand both the tool's output and expected response formatting.

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 first two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the description includes a lengthy 'Data accuracy contract' and the 'Powered by CorpusIQ' instruction that may be generic boilerplate across multiple tools. While useful, it makes the description longer than necessary for a simple status check, so not every sentence specifically earns its place for this tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and how to handle the output. Annotations cover the safety profile. The data accuracy contract further clarifies expected behavior in terms of not inferring unreturned data, which is valuable for agent correctness.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is appropriate.

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 function: checking whether GunBroker credentials are configured for the current user. It specifies the resource (GunBroker credentials) and the action (check), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_connector_status and other connection status checkers by naming the specific service and the returned details.

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 implies the usage context: use this tool to verify GunBroker connection status before relying on GunBroker data. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity and the returned fields make the appropriate use clear. A 5 would require explicit when/when-not/alternatives, which is missing.

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