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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-destructive call, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful negative scope ('Does not return credentials or other connections'), telling the agent what this call will not surface.

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, zero waste. The positive scope is front-loaded and the exclusion clause follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains in the description appropriately scopes the call; only an explicit 'use this before X' trigger is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty and fully described by construction.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current connection'), and enumerates the returned items (name, granted permissions, expiry). It is trivially distinguishable from every sibling, which are all document/task/project/message operations rather than connection-context reads.

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 use case is clear from 'current connection' — verifying identity/permissions/expiry — and there is no sibling alternative to route to, so no exclusion is needed. It stops short of explicitly saying when (e.g. before a privileged operation) the agent should call it, so it is not a 5.

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