check_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavior: for the mock profile, it returns a mock success result rather than performing a real authentication check. However, it does not describe possible failure modes, side effects, or what happens when no profile is selected or when the profile is invalid.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the mock-profile special case is stated separately and clearly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only connectivity check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including the important mock-profile exception. It could be slightly more complete by stating the expected result for real profiles, but the agent can reasonably infer success/failure from the stated purpose.

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 schema already fully describes the single optional profile parameter, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds useful context by referring to 'selected profile' and 'mock profile', helping the agent understand how the optional parameter relates to active profile selection, but it doesn't add significant new syntax or format detail.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('selected profile can reach and authenticate with Survey Solutions Headquarters'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the large sibling set by focusing on connectivity/authentication rather than data operations or server info.

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 implies the tool should be used to check profile connectivity/auth, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequistes, or alternatives. It does not mention when to choose check_connection over related tools like get_server_info or list_profiles.

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