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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations—that the tool does not call the model—but it does not describe the return value or any other runtime behavior. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with each earning its place: the first states the primary purpose, the second rules out the most likely misreading. No filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status check, the description is mostly complete. It explains what is checked and what is not done, but because there is no output schema it leaves the return shape (e.g., boolean vs status object) implicit.

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, so there is nothing for either the schema or the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter ambiguity is nonexistent.

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 action (check whether configured), a specific resource (optional Cohere Command A+ model integration), and explicitly contrasts with calling the model. This makes it distinguishable from the sibling analyze_contract_with_cohere without needing the schema.

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 makes the tool's role clear: verify configuration rather than invoke the model. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use before X,' but the 'Does not call the model' sentence gives enough context for an agent to avoid selecting it for analysis. No exclusion or alternative is named, so it stops short of 5.

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