connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no network/browser/refresh/writes occur, warns that token presence means "unknown, not authenticated" rather than success, and explains that the live_access field is not_checked. What remains unstated is the full return shape (other field names/format).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then scope, then the two most error-prone semantics (token presence, live_access), then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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, read-only diagnostics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the two interpretation pitfalls an agent would otherwise get wrong. Only the detailed return-value contents are left implicit.

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; baseline 4 applies. The schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, so no compensation 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?

States a specific verb (Report) and three concrete resources (server version, local configuration, authentication status), which lets an agent distinguish it from the credential-oriented siblings linkedin_login/linkedin_login_status. It also names the sibling list_ad_accounts as the place to go for a live check, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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 routes live-verification work to list_ad_accounts and implicitly positions this tool as the cheap local/offline check. The negative scope ("No network, browser, refresh or writes") further constrains when it applies. It lacks an explicit "use this when..." trigger sentence, but the alternative and exclusions are clear.

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