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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information with 'Free: costs no credits', a cost trait the annotations do not express.

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 short sentences: the return payload first, then the use case and cost note. Nothing is padded and no sentence restates 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so by naming the three fields. It omits edge behavior such as what happens with an invalid or expired credential, which would matter for an identity probe.

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 sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead spends its words describing what the call returns.

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?

It names the specific resource ('the current credential') and enumerates what comes back: account id, connection id, scopes. That is enough to separate it from the data-fetching siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_limits/get_usage, which cover adjacent credential concerns.

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?

'Use it to check what this connection is allowed to do' supplies a concrete situation for calling it. There is no exclusion or explicit alternative named, so an agent must infer when get_limits or get_usage is the better call.

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