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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the word 'Check' aligns with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it does not explain what statuses are returned, whether the session is refreshed, or what happens when no session exists.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is adequately concise for a simple status tool, though its brevity begins to approach under-specification.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, and the only optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, with no output schema and no description of the returned session status or its role in the login flow, the agent is left without complete context for interpreting the result.

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 account_link_id schema description already covers optionality, API-key auto-resolution, multi-certificate scenarios, and institution-specific IDs. The free-text description contributes no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 description states a specific action, 'Check', against a specific resource, 'COMWEL session status'. The COMWEL prefix plus 'session status' clearly distinguishes it from sibling login tools and data-retrieval tools in the same provider family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling session/login tools. It does not say 'call after login', 'call before COMWEL info queries', or name any alternative, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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