Comprobar conexión

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's added value is the disclosure that this call reports account-level permission state ('si la escritura está permitida') and the active identity context — useful information an agent cannot get from the annotation. It says nothing about latency, failure modes, or what an error response means, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the returned payload. Every clause earns its place; it could only be improved by adding a short when-to-use lead-in.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description carries the right amount of detail by enumerating the three things returned (user, company, write permission). It is nearly complete; a brief note on what a failure indicates would close the remaining 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space on inputs and instead frames what the caller receives.

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 ('Comprueba la conexión') and spells out exactly what it returns: the active user, the active company, and whether writing is permitted. This distinguishes it from every sibling, which are all invoice/payment/entity operations, so no explicit sibling routing is needed.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it is a pre-flight/identity check to run before other operations, but the description never says when to call it, whether it should be called first, or that no authentication state is mutated. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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