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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it specifies the connected: false response shape with a hint when no property is mapped, and it discloses the OAuth/dashboard limitation. This gives an agent accurate expectations for both success and failure cases.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second describes the unconnected return behavior, and the third explains the OAuth constraint. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it checks, what the failure response looks like, and what actions are out of scope. No critical behavioral or return information is missing.

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 input schema fully documents the single workspaceId parameter with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already carries the necessary information. This meets the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 states a precise operation: check whether a Search Console property is connected and when it last synced. It clearly distinguishes itself from related search_console_* tools by describing a status check rather than a sync or mutation, and it explicitly notes that connecting cannot be done from here.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: when an agent needs to know connection status or last-sync time. It also provides an explicit exclusion by stating that OAuth-based connection must happen in the dashboard, not through this tool. It does not name or route to a specific alternative tool, but the usage context is clear.

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