check_connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the async behavior: immediate pending response, long-polling via get_workflow_result, request budget, duplicate-work warning, and the meaning of pendingReason values including outsideWorkingHours. This is exemplary transparency beyond what any schema could 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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, async mechanics, retry warning, and pending-reason handling. It's front-loaded with the primary function and structured logically from immediate behavior to edge cases.

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?

The description explains the entire workflow lifecycle, return values, and how to handle pending states. However, it never explicitly states what the final result contains (e.g., the actual connection status values), relying on the tool name and purpose to imply that. For a complex async tool, this is a minor gap.

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 schema already covers personUrl with 100% description, including an example format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'check the connection status between your account and another person.' It names the underlying API action (st.checkConnectionStatus), and the purpose is clearly distinct from siblings like send_connection_request or retrieve_connections.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: the action is asynchronous, must retrieve results via get_workflow_result, and warns not to retry while running to avoid duplicate queued work. It explains how to handle pendingReason values but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, though the purpose makes the appropriate context obvious.

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