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 established. The description adds the user-scope detail but says nothing about return values, meaning of 'connected,' or how the optional token affects behavior. This is acceptable for a simple read-only check but does not go beyond the annotations significantly.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool checks. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 simple auth-status check with no output schema, the description plus annotations and the fully documented parameter provide enough context. It could mention the response shape or the role of the connection token, but the tool is small enough that this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the optional connectionToken parameter is already documented. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning, and it does not need to because the schema covers it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource and scope: 'whether Orbit is connected for this user.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like connect_orbit and disconnect_orbit, which perform actions rather than read status.

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 context clear: it is a status check for a user's Orbit connection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough that no close sibling appears to overlap.

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