check_connection_status

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds material behavior beyond them: it makes no provider call, is safe to poll every few seconds (rate-limit guidance), and defines a three-state result contract including the failure mode where retrying never helps. That is exactly the context an agent needs to drive a polling loop.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then supplies the polling loop, the user-notification rationale, safety, and the result-state handling in tight sentences. Despite its length, every sentence carries an instruction an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return states (connected true/false, needs_reconnect) and the correct follow-up for each. Combined with the annotations' safety profile, nothing needed to invoke and act on this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters is already fully documented there, including the provider_uuid warning about false negatives and false positives. The description restates the same guidance ('pass the same provider_uuid you gave start_channel_connect') without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('poll whether a dispatched connection has completed') and ties it directly to the sibling it follows, start_channel_connect. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from connect_sales_channel or check_setup_readiness 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 says when to call (repeatedly after start_channel_connect while the user authorizes in the browser), why (the user can't see this conversation), and how to react to each outcome: connected true, connected false, and needs_reconnect with the mandated alternative action. No ambiguity remains.

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