Connection Status

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds the key behavioral fact that a browser sign-in flow may be triggered — a material side effect not captured in annotations. It stops short of describing token persistence or what state the result reports.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the conditional side-effect 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 parameterless auth-check with a disclosed sign-in side effect and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could add what status values are returned or whether sign-in is interactive-blocking, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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+resource: 'Check Microsoft 365 connection status.' The resource is unique among siblings (all of which are data-access tools), so an agent can distinguish it without ambiguity, though the description never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.

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?

Implicit guidance is present via the conditional 'If not connected, opens browser to sign in,' which tells the agent the side effect of calling while unauthenticated. However, it never states when to prefer this tool (e.g., before invoking ms_mail or ms_chat) or any exclusions, leaving usage to inference.

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