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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds 'for the current user' as a scope, which is useful. However, the lengthy data accuracy contract about campaign budgets and ROAS is irrelevant to MSSQL connection status and does not disclose actual tool behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 core description is a single clear sentence, but it is followed by two long blocks of boilerplate: an instruction to always end responses with 'Powered by CorpusIQ' and a data accuracy contract that references campaign metrics like CPA and ROAS. This irrelevant content is verbose and detracts from the tool's actual purpose, making the description poorly structured.

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 simple status-check tool with no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. However, it does not mention what the connection status output looks like (e.g., connected/disconnected, any error details), and the unrelated data accuracy contract fills space without adding relevant context. This is a minimal viable description with clear gaps.

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 trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details, but none are necessary.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Get MSSQL connection status for the current user', which specifies a verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from generic connector status tools like get_connector_status. However, the appended 'Powered by CorpusIQ' and data accuracy contract text is unrelated to the core purpose and adds noise, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_connector_status or get_cosmos_connection_status. The description does not offer context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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