Get status

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description earns credit for adding new information: the response content varies by role (administrators additionally receive plan details) and exposes accounts requiring re-authentication. It does not discuss caching, freshness, or failure modes, 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 efficient sentence with the primary resource front-loaded and the admin caveat trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the clause ordering puts the role-dependent nuance after the core claim rather than segmenting it.

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 an output schema present and zero parameters, the description needn't document return shapes, and it covers what the tool surfaces plus the role-based variation. The only real omission is routing guidance versus sibling status/list tools, already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 already fully covers the empty input object.

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?

Names the resource ("Account connection and scheduled-send status") and enumerates the notable contents: re-authentication issues and, for admins, plan details. This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from list_accounts or list_scheduled_emails, though it never says so 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?

Usage is only implied — the mention of accounts needing re-authentication hints at a health-check use case, but there is no explicit "use when" or any comparison to the closest siblings (list_accounts, list_scheduled_emails). The agent must infer the invocation context.

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