Check the connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the check verifies authentication as well as reachability, and what a failure means diagnostically (instance not responding vs. connector needs reconnecting). It does not describe what a success response contains, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 with zero filler: the first defines the check, the second front-loads the failure branch and the required agent behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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-param health-check with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete — purpose, scope, and failure handling are all present. The only omission is the shape of a successful result, which an agent can infer but would benefit from seeing stated.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 and resource ('Check that the Aldine connector is reachable and authenticated') and goes beyond a bare connectivity ping by naming the authentication dimension. It is clearly distinct from every sibling tool, which all operate on projects, files, or citations.

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 failure clause gives an explicit exclusion ('do not go on to other tools') plus the user-facing action to take, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs. It stops short of saying when to call it proactively (e.g., first call in a session), so it is strong but not fully explicit about the positive trigger.

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