getConnectionContext

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the organization is fixed during authorization, all tools default to it, and reconnecting is the way to change it. It also clarifies that entitlements determine feature availability, which helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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 a concise statement of what the tool reports, then gives two concrete use cases. Each paragraph serves a distinct purpose and no sentence is redundant or 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 zero-parameter introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool reports, when to call it, why empty results may appear, and how entitlements affect feature recommendations. The output schema handles return-value details.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate here because the description cannot meaningfully elaborate on an empty parameter list.

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 ('Report') and a clear resource: the connection's OpenGraph organization and plan entitlements. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on audits, websites, images, or fix items.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when a result is unexpectedly empty' and 'Also use it before suggesting a feature.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but it clearly explains the diagnostic scenarios and how the information affects subsequent actions.

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