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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by framing the tool as a diagnostic for auth/permission failures. It does not, however, resolve whether 'renewal' means the call reports renewal state or performs a renewal, which is the one behavior an agent might act on.

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 sentences, zero filler. The return-value list is front-loaded and the call conditions follow immediately, so the agent gets scope and trigger in one read.

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 values need not be explained, making the description's field list a bonus rather than a requirement. The only residual gap is the ambiguity of 'renewal' — an agent cannot tell from the text whether calling this can refresh an expired token or only reports on it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed.

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?

Names a specific resource (this connection's state) and enumerates exactly what is returned: workspace, scope, token expiry and renewal. That field list distinguishes it cleanly from the data-oriented siblings (query_database, get_pages, list_members), none of which report connection health.

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?

Gives three concrete, observable triggers: Remnus tools missing, a write refused, or a 401 failure. An agent that hits any of these symptoms knows immediately to call this tool rather than guessing at recovery options, which is stronger routing guidance than most sibling definitions provide.

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