Check Ghost connection

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

Annotations already declare this safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld), so the safety bar is met elsewhere. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the check is non-secret-exposing and reports configured optional features, which tells the agent it can log/share results safely.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, secondary output, and a security constraint, all of which earn their 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?

An output schema exists and there are no parameters, so the description need not explain return values, and it correctly covers both the auth-verification outcome and the feature-reporting outcome. The only missing piece is guidance on when to prefer it over the related check_site_health tool.

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 trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 a specific verb (verify) and resource (Ghost authentication) and adds a second concrete outcome: reporting which optional features are configured. It is clearly distinct from content-oriented siblings like get_post or list_tags, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named check_site_health sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer it should call this to validate credentials or probe configuration. There is no explicit when-to-use framing and no mention of alternatives, notably the overlapping check_site_health sibling, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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