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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description is not burdened with that. It adds real value by enumerating the specific content returned (API address, key format, docs, key acquisition path), which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the subject and then a tight enumeration of the four returned items. Nothing is repeated and no filler is present.

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, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: the fact that it returns connection/credential information and what that information covers. It could only be stronger by stating that no authentication is required to call it or noting the response format.

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 of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to elaborate. The description correctly implies a parameterless, single-shot lookup.

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 names a specific resource (IRI Gateway connection details) and enumerates what it returns: API address, key format, documentation, and where to obtain a key. The purpose is clear and clearly distinct from the siblings (prices, ratings, job/model/subscription search), though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to configure a client or find credentials. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative among the sibling tools.

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