Connection health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it checks OAuth token and multiple API endpoints, returns per-service status, and provides actionable guidance. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining what the tool actually inspects and what the agent should expect back.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the action, lists the checked services, gives a concrete usage directive, and summarizes the return value in three short segments. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant filler.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It says what is tested, when to run it, what is returned (status per service), and what kind of output to expect (actionable guidance). An agent needs nothing more to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the absence of parameters is itself clear and the description does not need to explain inputs.

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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Test' and resource 'AdLoop connectivity,' then enumerates the exact services checked (OAuth token, GA4 API, Google Ads API, Reddit Ads API when configured). This clearly distinguishes it from the many data-fetching and mutation sibling tools; it is unambiguously a diagnostic connectivity tool.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance: 'Run this first if other tools are failing.' This is a clear when-to-use signal that routes an agent to this tool before troubleshooting other failures. It does not name a specific alternative, but none is necessary for a health check, and the recommendation is direct and actionable.

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