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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which is counterintuitive for a 'status' tool; the description justifies it by disclosing that GitHub/Linear 'may save verification or revoke invalid authority'. It also discloses that Drive reports stored authorization only and Meta/LINE report saved channel state only — a critical warning that this is not a live health probe.

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 side-effect warning is front-loaded in the first clause, which is the right ordering. Some sentences are telegraphic to the point of being clipped ('provider_connect_attempt_read reports attempt'), costing a little readability.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description together cover the safety profile and the surprising destructive behavior. The per-provider reporting-scope caveats are exactly the information an agent needs to avoid misreading the result as live connectivity.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description does add per-enum-value semantics (which provider values yield stored-vs-live state and which can mutate), which is meaningful beyond the schema, but it does not explain the agent_id/provider interaction further.

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 ('Reports connection state') and immediately scopes it per provider (GitHub/Linear, Drive, Meta, LINE). It explicitly names the siblings it is not — line_health_read, line_connection_verify, provider_connect_attempt_read — so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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?

Clear routing for the ambiguous cases: LINE health/verification belongs to line_health_read/line_connection_verify, and attempt history belongs to provider_connect_attempt_read. It does not address the other nearby siblings (provider_disconnect, provider_disconnect_impact, provider_resources_read, connection_context), so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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