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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a scope clarification ('does not read account data') that meaningfully narrows the tool to connection metadata, but the remaining negatives largely restate what the annotations already imply. No auth, rate-limit, or output-format context is added.

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, no waste, and the positive statement of what is returned is front-loaded before the boundary disclaimers.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read-only discovery tool the description is nearly sufficient, though a positive cue about when to invoke it (e.g., before calling other Premiss tools) would close the last gap.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 (Read) and a specific resource (this connection's available tools and supported research coverage). It distinguishes the tool from data-producing siblings through the explicit disclaimers, though it does not name an alternative sibling by name.

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 negative clauses ('does not read account data, save research, or run a simulation') route the agent away from get_profile, save_research_note, and start_backtest, but they never state positively when to call this tool first (e.g., as a discovery step). Usage is implied rather than explicit, and no alternative is named.

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