get_cancel_on_disconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the COD dead man's switch, when it fires, the grace window, and what each returned field means. It also discloses the authentication requirement and the limitation for REST-only clients.

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 front-loaded with the deprecation notice and purpose, then efficiently explains the domain concept and return fields. Every sentence adds useful context, especially given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 parameterless, deprecated status endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the purpose, auth requirement, return fields, and limitations. An agent can correctly decide whether to use this tool or its replacement.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details because none exist, which is appropriate for a parameterless status endpoint.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the authenticated account's cancel-on-disconnect status. It also names the replacement tool (`fetch_cancel_on_disconnect`) and clearly distinguishes the read behavior from the sibling `set_cancel_on_disconnect`.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is deprecated and directs the caller to use `fetch_cancel_on_disconnect`. It also clarifies that REST-only clients are not covered and that API credentials are required, giving clear usage boundaries.

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