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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Returns metadata only' and adds useful context about the scope ('noticed integration sources') and the kind of status information exposed, but it does not reveal significant behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the output schema already convey.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and key output dimensions; the second sentence supplies the safety clarification and the intended use case. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, a rich enum, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It gives the agent both what the tool returns and when to invoke it, leaving no necessary gap for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single optional 'source' parameter has an enum and a clear description, including the omit-for-all-sources behavior. The tool description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'noticed integration sources,' then lists the exact status fields returned: safe account labels, connection state, effective sync cadence, and latest attempt or completion. It clearly distinguishes this read-only inspection tool from mutation siblings like sync_connected_source by saying 'Returns metadata only.'

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?

The phrase 'use this before claiming a source is connected or current' gives an explicit, actionable usage condition. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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