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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the classification scheme it reports and that token expiry is surfaced, which helps an agent interpret the result. It does not discuss auth prerequisites for the call itself.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary subject (how the connection is classified) is front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. Every clause — connection modes, plan/trial state, tool availability, token expiry, and the when-to-use rule — earns its place.

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, the description carries the burden of return-value disclosure and does so well: it lists the connection modes and the specific status fields (Free/Pro, trial, tools and fields, token expiry). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. There is no argument surface for the description to clarify, and the empty schema is consistent with the description's read-only, no-input framing.

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 and resource (reports how the assistant is connected to FirmLedger) and enumerates the connection modes (public, API key, OAuth) plus the state it surfaces (plan, trial, available tools/fields, token expiry). An agent can tell what this returns without opening any schema, and the scope is distinct from the many list/manage siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions: when the member asks whether they are connected/signed in, or why something is locked. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, which matters here because the near-identical sibling 'connection_status' is not differentiated, leaving a possible routing ambiguity unaddressed.

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