Connection information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: authentication is preconfigured, no token should be requested, operator credentials have no personal library, and the tool is purely diagnostic. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose and return value first, then adds authentication context and optionality. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no 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 simple read-only diagnostic with schema-covered parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, return contents, authentication expectations, and its relationship to other operations. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without needing additional information.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden. The description does not add additional meaning about tenant_id or share_token, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs ('Check', 'diagnose') and names the exact resource ('remote Artifact Site account/server'), plus the returned information (identity, operator status, transfer limits). It clearly distinguishes this as an optional connection diagnostic from the many sibling artifact_site operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to check connection, diagnose authentication, or check upload size limits. It also clarifies that authentication is already configured, so the agent should not request a token, and that this is optional rather than a prerequisite. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the usage context is clear.

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