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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), and the description goes well beyond them by documenting all five return fields and their value domains, plus the real-world consequence of a misconfigured credential. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, usage follow-up in the next, and the return contract is a compact labeled list. Every element earns its place, and the returns list is justified because no output schema exists.

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 input params, no output schema, and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description closes every remaining gap: it explains the trigger, the failure mode, and the meaning of each returned field. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No param text is needed or missing.

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 concrete verb (Show) and a precise resource (the identity and workspace NEXUS attributes this connection's calls to), which is unmistakable against siblings like get_context or list_agents. An agent can tell exactly what this diagnostics tool returns without opening any 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 a clear trigger (verify a new agent setup) and the failure mode that motivates it (wrong attribution of writes if authenticated is false or the tenant is unexpected). It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but for a unique diagnostic endpoint there is no real alternative to route to.

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