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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: it will not return the code, will not retrieve private evidence, and does not persist a chat-supplied code. Those are non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise assume wrong. It stops short of describing the response shape or failure modes.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose plus the privacy constraint are front-loaded before the parameter guidance and the follow-up routing.

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 should ideally signal what a 'check' yields (boolean, status message, error on unreachable server); it describes the check's intent but not its result. Everything else an agent needs to call it correctly — arg semantics, default behavior, persistence caveat, handoff — is present.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it names the parameter (accessCode), says to pass the code unchanged, and explains the zero-argument default (connector credential) and the non-persistence caveat. It does not address the 64-character limit or expected format, which the schema only implies.

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+resource (check whether a recruiter access code reached this server and is valid) plus a scope constraint (without retrieving private evidence or returning the code). It is clearly distinguishable from assess_job_fit, which is named explicitly.

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 explicit routing: if the user supplied a code in chat, pass it unchanged as accessCode; with no argument, it checks the connector credential. It also names the follow-up (pass the code again to assess_job_fit), so the agent knows both when to call this and what to do next.

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