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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: masking of the client ID, the explicit 'Never returns tokens' guarantee, and the caveat that a host disconnect may leave a live grant that must be revoked on the Connected Apps page.

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 what is read, followed by the return-field list and the revoke caveat; every sentence carries information. The long host enumeration ('ChatGPT, Claude Desktop, claude.ai, Claude Code, Cursor, Codex and other MCP hosts') is somewhat list-heavy but serves a real purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers safety guarantees, host coverage, and the revoke fallback. The only omission is what `lang` affects, which is minor for a single-parameter read 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 single `lang` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all, so the agent must infer from the enum values (ru/en/es/pt) that it controls response language. The enum is self-explanatory enough that invocation is unlikely to go wrong, but the description contributes nothing here.

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 ('Read the current OAuth connection') and enumerates exactly what is returned: masked client ID, approved scopes, access expiry, settings/reconnect steps. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aimixer_account or aimixer_status because it is scoped to the OAuth grant itself.

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?

Implies the troubleshooting context (reconnect steps per host, revoke caveat when a disconnect doesn't call OAuth revoke) but never says explicitly when to prefer this over aimixer_account or aimixer_status. The usage context is clear without being a routing rule.

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