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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with idempotentHint=true, and the description explains why a 'test' is a write: it updates the integration's health status. It also discloses what is returned (reachability, token validity, plugin version, capabilities). It does not mention permissions or rate limiting, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then return payload, then parameter/precondition guidance. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. For a one-parameter tool with preconditions and side effects covered, it is nearly complete; only error/auth behavior is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of integrationId. It does so by explaining when it is needed (multiple blogs connected) versus when it can be omitted, which is more than the bare string type in the schema. It still doesn't say where to obtain the ID, keeping it from a 5.

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 (test) and resource (connectivity to the team's connected WordPress blog via the PostNext plugin), plus the secondary effect of updating integration health. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_account_health or get_publish_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?

Gives the selection condition for the optional parameter ('Pass integrationId when more than one blog is connected; otherwise the single connected blog is used') and states the precondition that a blog must be connected first. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for troubleshooting, so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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