estado_conexion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe, non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool reports account identity and remaining access duration, but does not disclose anything further such as output format or refresh behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and wastes no words.

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 simple zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description gives the agent enough to know what information it will receive. It does not detail the output structure, but there is no output schema and the reported facts are self-explanatory. It is complete for practical invocation purposes.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The rubric baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Muestra') and clearly identifies the resource: the connected account and remaining access days. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like conectar_cuenta, which mutate the connection state.

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 description implies a status-checking use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over conectar_cuenta or completar_conexion. There are no exclusions or alternative-naming cues, leaving usage timing to inference.

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