check_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the return payload (status plus program name) and the important caveat that a blocked session can report connected and fail on later reads. It does not mention auth requirements or timeouts on this call itself, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, return values second, and the non-obvious caveat last. Every sentence contributes information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by naming what is returned (connection status and program name). The blocked-session caveat covers the main failure mode. It stops short of saying what to do when the check fails or how long a check may take, which would complete the picture for a connectivity probe.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single `product` parameter, and it only refers to it as 'the given MIDAS NX product'. The enum (gen, civil) constrains the choice mechanically, so an agent can still populate it, but the description adds no explanation of what each product value selects.

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: check whether a given MIDAS NX product is reachable through the Open API. It also says it returns connection status and program name, so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the read/analysis siblings (read_table, run_analysis, etc.), but the connectivity-check framing makes its distinct role evident.

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 implied rather than stated: this is a pre-flight connectivity probe, and the note that a blocked NX session can still report 'connected' hints at how to interpret and when to distrust a positive result. There is no explicit 'call this before X' or 'do not use this to verify data access' guidance, and no alternatives are named.

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