check_trading_connection

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful safety context by declaring the operation read-only and that credentials are never exposed — an important disclosure for a trading system. However, it says nothing about what happens with an invalid or disabled connection, what 'status' values can be returned, or any permission requirements.

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 short sentences with the purpose first and the safety caveat second; no filler and nothing an agent must wade through.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only/no-credential-exposure note covers the main behavioral concern. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on error or invalid-connection behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'connection' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Trading connection id'. The description adds no further syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('trading connection') plus the exact attributes inspected: venue identity and status. That clearly separates it from mutating siblings like update_trading_connection or set_trading_connection_enabled, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_trading or list_trading_destinations. The agent must infer that this is for validating a single connection by ID from the imperative verb alone.

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