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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: github entries never push or pull and their pending count never drains, and on lapsed accounts pushes are paused so pending can grow. These are non-obvious traits an agent cannot derive from annotations or schema.

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 core purpose, then returns, then filtering, then caveats. Every sentence earns its place, though 'Free on every plan' is a mild marketing aside and the passage is longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden: it enumerates connected, last push time, pending count, and last error. Combined with the github and lapsed-account edge cases, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum is documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the filter intent ('Pass provider to filter to one provider') and warning that a github value is reported but non-functional.

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 (Report) and resource (mirror connection state and push health per provider), and clearly distinguishes itself from mirror_connect/designate/push/reconcile as a read-only status check. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 strong contextual guidance: how to filter by provider, that the tool is free on every plan, and how to interpret a github entry. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., mirror_reconcile) or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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