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

Annotations already declare the mutation is non-destructive and idempotent, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds two things annotations cannot convey: the call is metered (costs quota), and support is conditional on a reliable check existing. It still doesn't say what the status update looks like on failure or when no reliable check exists.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the action and its effect come first and the metering/reliability caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what a re-check returns, and it only says the status is updated without describing the resulting status or the outcome when no reliable check is available. The core action, cost model, and idempotency are covered, so it is adequate but leaves a real gap for a metered mutation.

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% and both parameters carry inline documentation, including where the id comes from and the constraint that organizationId must be an approved workspace. The description adds no further meaning about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: re-check a connected platform login and update its status. This clearly separates it from list_platform_accounts, which only enumerates accounts, and from connect_platform/disconnect_platform_account, which create or remove links. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with.

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 prefix 'Re-checks' implies this is for an already-connected account whose status may be stale, and the id parameter note points back to list_platform_accounts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of how often a re-check is warranted, and no guidance on what to do for platforms without a reliable check.

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