ibkr_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'read-only connectivity' and 'server time,' which aligns with annotations but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as error handling, connection state semantics, or potential side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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 with no redundant wording. Every phrase adds meaning: 'read-only connectivity,' 'configured IBKR Gateway session,' and 'return server time.' It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description mostly suffices: it states the action and a concrete return value (server time). However, it could be clearer about the exact return shape or how connectivity confirmation is represented (e.g., success status, boolean, or error), so it is not fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return values rather than input semantics, and no parameter documentation is 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 clearly states a specific action ('Confirm read-only connectivity') and a resource ('IBKR Gateway session'), plus an additional output ('return server time'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on accounts, positions, orders, or market data.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident as a connectivity/status check, and the sibling list makes it distinct from data-retrieval tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative, so usage is only implied.

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