Jisr connection status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that no credentials or organization identifiers are returned, which manages expectations about sensitive data exposure. It also discloses the specific pieces of status information included.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the key exclusion. No wasted words; every clause earns its 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?

Without an output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the main reported fields (reachability, last authentication time, last error) and the privacy boundary. For a simple status check this is sufficient, though it could theoretically mention whether the call requires any prerequisites or how to interpret a missing auth time.

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 there is nothing for the description to add about parameter usage. The schema is vacuously complete at 100% coverage, and the description avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details, giving the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Reports') with a clear resource (whether the server can reach Jisr, last authentication time, and error). It explicitly differentiates itself by stating what it does not return, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list data or capabilities.

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 this tool is for checking connection/authentication status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools or mention any exclusions. Since no alternatives are named, the usage context is only implied.

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