get_account_status

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not required to establish safety. It still adds real context beyond them: what the response reveals (linkage state, session status, username) and an explicit assurance that no passwords or secrets are exposed. It does not cover what a failure/expired-session result looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action and the systems involved, then the returned information, then the security note. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is filler.

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 must convey the return payload, and it does so at a useful level (linked status, session status, username). No annotations or schema gaps remain unexplained; only the shape of edge-case responses is left open, which is minor for a zero-arg status check.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 (get) and resource (connection status of personal accounts) and names both covered systems (IIS BSUIR, SEO Moodle), which no sibling tool does — siblings read profiles, grades, courses, or schedules rather than account linkage state. An agent can tell this apart from iis_get_profile and lms_get_courses without opening any 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?

Usage is implied: check whether the personal accounts are linked and whether a session is active before relying on the iis_*/lms_* data tools. However, no explicit when-to-use instruction, no prerequisite statement, and no alternative named, so guidance is only inferable rather than stated.

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