Compte viraldar connecté

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the useful trait that the call consumes no quota. It implies a read-only probe by phrasing ('Dit si...'), but never states that it has no side effects or what happens when unauthenticated.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the check, the returned identity fields, and the quota cost — nothing extraneous.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return content, and it does: connection status plus the account e-mail and identifier. Only the unauthenticated/error case is left unstated.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 check — whether this MCP is connected to viraldar — and names the returned identity fields (e-mail, identifiant). It is clearly distinct from the connexion/deconnexion siblings by being a status query rather than an auth action, though it never names them 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?

The note 'Ne coûte rien sur le quota' implies this is the cheap way to verify session state before doing costly work, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer the calling context.

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