connector_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the valuable behavioral trait that this operation costs no Zoho API calls, which is not in the annotations. It does not go into auth details beyond granted scopes, but that is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, perfectly sized. The first sentence front-loads the returned information; the second adds a key behavioral benefit. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool that has an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what it will learn and that the call is free, and the annotations cover the safety profile. No critical information 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 no parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rules, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 for parameter semantics. There is nothing further the description needs to add.

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 states exactly what the tool reports: the connected Zoho organization, granted scopes, and remaining per-minute/daily API budget. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that retrieve business objects (items, sales orders, availability). The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit verb like 'Returns', but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 tool is a diagnostic status check, so its use is somewhat implied. The sentence 'Costs no Zoho API calls' hints that it can be called freely, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites such as needing an existing connection.

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