get_connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it enumerates the exact return statuses (connected | unauthenticated | disconnected), states what credential/base-URL information is included, and gives a security guarantee that secrets are never returned. This is exactly the kind of read-only safety and return-shape context an agent needs for a connectivity tool.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose, return contents plus security guarantee, then usage directive. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must explain return values — and it does (status enum, credential flag, base URL, no secrets). Combined with the call-first guidance, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline score of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('Report') and resource (connectivity of the KikoBooks MCP server to an organization), and is clearly distinct from every sibling tool, which are all domain CRUD/search/analytics operations. An agent can identify this as the health-check tool without opening any 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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call this first to confirm connectivity before other tools,' establishing both when to use it and its ordering relative to all siblings. No alternative tool exists for this purpose, so no when-not clause is needed.

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