get_connection_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: local-only scope, OAuth expiry semantics, test-caller fixed expiry, and stdio isolation. This goes well beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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?

Four short sentences carry distinct caveats with no filler, and the main scope constraint is front-loaded. The density is appropriate for a status/configuration tool with important qualification details.

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?

It covers the main behavioral caveats an agent needs before trusting the result, including that local credentials do not prove provider access. It does not fully describe the returned status fields, but for a zero-parameter local status tool the description is largely complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and no parameter-related gaps are present.

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 clarifies that this is a local configuration check rather than a live provider-access check, which meaningfully distinguishes it from search_ebay and get_ebay_item. It does not explicitly state the return content, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to know what class of status this tool reports.

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 credentials configured does not prove provider access and directs verification to search and exact item retrieval, which maps well to the sibling tools. It lacks a direct 'use this when...' sentence, but the when-not condition and alternatives are clear.

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