Moneybird connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the three concrete pieces of state it reports: credential validity, selected administration, and token-reachable administrations, giving agents a clear sense of the tool's behavior beyond generic 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Report whether...') and packs the full behavioral scope into three coordinated clauses. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description completely captures the relevant information an agent needs: what the tool checks, what state it reveals, and the selection/reach scope. With no input schema and no output schema, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already expresses. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 ('Report') and a clear resource (Moneybird connection status), and enumerates exactly what the tool reports: credential validity, selected administration, and reachable administrations. This distinguishes it from siblings like connect_moneybird, select_administration, and list_administrations by framing it as a read-only status check rather than an action or listing operation.

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 the tool is for diagnosing the Moneybird connection and checking the currently selected administration, giving clear context for when an agent would call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as connect_moneybird or list_administrations, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria.

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