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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds some useful context about what information is shown, but it does not add operational details such as permissions, rate limits, or whether the disconnect information is merely guidance.

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. However, the phrase about account approval and consciousnesses is somewhat dense, and including disconnect/revoke guidance may blur the boundary with the sibling `disconnect` tool.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema and strong annotations, so the description is largely complete. Its main gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to the `disconnect` sibling, especially since it mentions disconnect/revoke behavior.

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 no parameter semantics burden for the description to compensate for. The schema is empty and the description does not need to explain arguments.

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 that this tool shows connection-related information: account approval, consciousnesses, status, and disconnect/revoke guidance. This is a clear read-only status/resource purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `disconnect` tool despite mentioning disconnect and revoke.

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 implies usage for inspecting connection status but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as `disconnect`, `consult_mind`, or `review_work`. It also does not clarify that the disconnect/revoke information is informational only rather than an action.

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