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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee: it returns no API keys or credentials, which clarifies an important security-relevant aspect of the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose and a key exclusion ('without returning API keys or other credentials') without repeating title or parameter details already present in the schema.

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 read-only tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and zero required fields, the description plus schema is largely complete. The only minor gap is that no output structure is described, but for a status-metadata getter this is not a blocker.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('company connection-status metadata'), and explicitly disclaims that it returns API keys or credentials. This clearly differentiates it from sibling connection-related tools like brc_start_company_connection, brc_confirm_company_connection, and the key-clearing tools.

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 itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the connectionRef parameter documentation provides meaningful usage context, telling the agent to reuse the same connectionRef and not to start a new connection after empty or partial lookup results. This is implied rather than explicit guidance.

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