get_connect_link_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the discrete return states (pending, opened/redeemed, connected, error, expired) plus a parenthetical meaning for the ambiguous ones, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two compact sentences, purpose first, state list and routing hint after. Nothing is wasted and no clause is redundant with 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 compensates by naming the possible result states, which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret a response. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say what happens to expired links or whether status is a single value or a transition history.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already says 'sessionId returned by create_channel_connect_link'; the tool description merely repeats that provenance without adding format, validation, or error behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus resource ('a connect link created with create_channel_connect_link'), and it explicitly separates itself from get_agent_channels, which verifies the channel rather than the link. An agent can pick this tool without opening either schema.

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 states the precondition (link must come from create_channel_connect_link) and names the alternative sibling with its distinct purpose ('To verify the channel itself use get_agent_channels'). It does not say when checking is unnecessary or how often to poll, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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