test_connection

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read-only profile. The description adds substantive detail beyond that: the three specific preconditions it probes (Chrome reachability, GHL tab, Firebase token), which is real behavioral context. It omits what failure output or partial-failure states look 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the verification targets come first and the call-ordering instruction follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-dependency diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and when to run it. It stops short of describing the result shape or the remediation path when a check fails, which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 ('Verify') and enumerates the exact resources checked: Chrome reachability, GHL tab presence, and Firebase token extraction. None of the siblings (reconnect, launch_chrome, list_*) do this, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first to confirm the MCP server can communicate with GoHighLevel,' giving clear sequencing context. It does not mention what to do on failure (e.g., fall back to launch_chrome or reconnect), which would have made the guidance complete.

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