Confirm the portal connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: it proves credentials work, reports failure reason and fix, and returns a few short fields rather than a JSON wall. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the failure reporting and response format, which is useful for an agent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the 'START HERE' directive, immediately establishing the tool's role. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains the credential proof and failure handling, and the third clarifies the response format and when to use an alternative. No wasted words.

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 tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and when to use an alternative. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's clear statement of the returned fields. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns (portal, version, user, write permissions, browser assist status) and how it behaves (single round-trip, failure reporting). Since there are no parameters to document, the description effectively covers the tool's semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: confirm in one authenticated round-trip which Zuar Portal this folder is on, its version, who you're signed in as, what you may write, and whether browser assist is on. It uses a specific verb ('confirm') and resource ('portal connection'), and distinguishes itself from get_capabilities by noting it returns a few short fields rather than a full JSON wall.

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 description explicitly says 'START HERE' and instructs to call get_capabilities only if the full tool/group, VC and audit posture is needed. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool, making it easy for an agent to decide between check_connection and get_capabilities.

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