서비스 연결 상태

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the configured-connection prerequisite and the guarantee that no credentials are returned, which matters for an openWorldHint tool reaching an external platform.

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: the first gives the purpose, the second gives the prerequisite and the privacy guarantee. No filler, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema probe, an agent has what it needs to decide to call it and what environment is required. The one gap is that the possible availability outcomes/response shape are unspecified, leaving interpretation of the result to inference.

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. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty input schema is consistent with the description.

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 ('check availability') and the two resources whose availability is checked (requirements review and reference collection), which is enough to separate it from the sibling action tools review_requirements and collect_reference. It is clear, though it never explicitly frames itself as a health/precondition probe.

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 implied rather than stated: 'Requires a configured platform connection' gives a prerequisite, but the description never says to call this before review_requirements/collect_reference or what to do when it reports unavailability. No alternatives or when-not conditions are named.

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