Check connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains the readiness-check workflow and previews the return payload, which annotations cannot convey.

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 filler, and the payload description is front-loaded before the usage instruction. The field list is dense but each listed field earns its place as a readiness signal.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return contents and does so completely, including the theme summary and the verbose toggle. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'verbose' parameter is fully documented in the schema (default false, what it adds). The description mentions the summary but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and enumerates the exact fields returned (bridge status, siteName, selected page, editorReady, theme summary), so the agent knows precisely what this tool answers. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_pages or read_page, which are content-oriented rather than connection/diagnostic.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: after creating or opening a site, and gives a concrete gating condition (wait until editorReady is true and siteId matches). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to sequence it correctly.

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