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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it enumerates the health states reported and notes that diagnostics are normalized, telling the agent what signal to expect before acting.

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, with the pre-action timing guidance front-loaded before the return-content detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient for a single-param read tool, with only the account_id semantics left 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?

Only one parameter (account_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never names or explains it. The phrase 'a specific social connection' loosely implies account_id identifies the connection, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 and resource ('Get token/scopes/provider capability health and normalized diagnostics') and enumerates the states it reports (healthy, expired, limited, needs human action). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling diagnose_connection.

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 a concrete usage trigger: 'Use this before provider actions when you need to know whether a specific social connection is healthy...'. That is clear context for invocation, but there are no exclusions or guidance on when diagnose_connection would be the better pick.

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