Test R365 Connection

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a test tool. The description adds value by specifying the success output ('Returns location count'), providing concrete behavioral insight beyond 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it does, what it returns, and the credential dependency. Sibling tools are all different, so no further context is needed.

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 input schema has no parameters, making schema coverage 100% trivially. The description correctly skips parameter details, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'live connection to Restaurant365 OData'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like r365_list_entities and r365_query, which are for data retrieval, not connection testing. Also specifies what is returned on success ('location count').

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to verify a live connection. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but given the distinct purpose and sibling tools, the usage is well implied. The tool requires no parameters, making its invocation straightforward.

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