Check the sevDesk connection

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description's added value is disclosing what the call reports: token validity, server mode, and tax-system generation. That is genuinely useful context an agent could not infer from the empty schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the reported facts, ending with the imperative usage cue. Nothing wasted.

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 output schema, the description is the sole source of return-value expectations and it names the three things reported. It could add what a failure result looks like, but for a diagnostic ping it is close to 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no param narrative since none exist.

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 specific verbs and outputs: verify the API token, report server mode, and bookkeeping generation (1.0 taxType / 2.0 taxRule). This is unmistakably the connection/diagnostic tool versus the domain-operation siblings like sevdesk_list_invoices or sevdesk_call.

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?

"Run this first" gives clear, actionable timing guidance that distinguishes it from every sibling. No when-not or failure-path guidance is given, but for a preflight check that guidance is largely implicit.

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