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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/no-destructive hints. The description adds value by specifying the payload contents (server version, key scope, account role, tool count, write permission) and the semantics of integration statuses (`ok`, `not_connected`, `auth_error`, `no_data`) plus embedded remediation guidance. It does not contradict annotations.

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 dense but arguably a little padded: 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation, and the three example questions are helpful but not strictly necessary. Core purpose and usage are front-loaded, and each remaining sentence contributes unique information.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent will receive and when to call it. It includes the list of integrations, possible status values, and directs the agent to use it before critical decisions. Nothing essential 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, and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter-level semantics to document. Baseline 4 for 0-param tools; the description appropriately focuses on output and usage instead.

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: it reports the state of the klyo connection, enumerating server version, key scope, account role, tool count, write permission, and integration statuses with action items. The example questions make it unambiguous that this is a status/health-check tool, clearly distinct from the mutating sibling tools.

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 instructs to call it at the start of work and before relying on a possibly-unloaded report section, giving clear timing. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the sibling set makes the status role obvious and the examples reinforce the intended use cases.

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