connection_status

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

The description discloses the key non-obvious behavior that annotations do not convey: this is an asynchronous task-creator, not a synchronous status read, and results must be fetched via get_task. The read-only claim is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Note the mild tension that idempotentHint=false plus task creation implies repeated calls spawn new tasks, which the description does not address.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the purpose and then the follow-up step, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place despite the brevity.

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, annotation-rich, async task tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent most needs: what the task does and where its results live. It omits any explanation of the check's scope or output shape, but result structure is delegated to get_task, so the gap is minor.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema is fully described (100% coverage) with additionalProperties=false.

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 names a specific action and resource — creating a read-only browser/account check task — which is more accurate than the name 'connection_status', which misleadingly reads like a synchronous status getter. It also distinguishes itself from the get_task sibling by routing result retrieval there. It does not differentiate itself from the remaining siblings (list_platforms, search), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance ('use get_task to view results'), which is genuinely useful for an async tool. However, it never states when to invoke this check versus other siblings, nor any preconditions or exclusions, so usage is only partially specified.

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