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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorld=false), so credit here is for the added context: the returned fields (connected, handle, masked account_id_hint, scopes, expires_at), the privacy guarantee that no tokens/keys/PII are exposed, and the disconnect/reconnect behavior. "OAuth reconnects" is slightly ambiguous about whether this call triggers the reconnect or merely reports the need.

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?

Front-loaded with the canonical-entry-point claim and the sibling exclusion, then return fields, then caveats — a sensible information order in roughly 50 words. The semicolon-chained, near-telegraphic phrasing costs it a point in readability.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it enumerates the returned fields and what is deliberately withheld. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the sibling differentiation and the reconnect mechanics remain thin.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could clarify. It correctly presents the tool as argument-free.

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 first clause names the exact question the tool answers ("which WebAZ account am I connected as?") and explicitly rules out webaz_profile, which is a specific resource distinction. The only gap is that the similarly named sibling webaz_get_status is never addressed, leaving a small ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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?

It declares itself the "STANDARD, canonical entry point" for account/OAuth introspection and names an explicit non-substitute (api_key-only webaz_profile), plus the fallback path when disconnected. It stops short of a full when-not matrix because webaz_get_status and webaz_info are not mentioned.

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