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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that with "Returns no credentials" (a security-relevant guarantee) and the explicit enumeration of what is being checked. It stops short of describing the shape of the status result, so it is not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the tool's role and followed by the invocation trigger. Every clause earns its place; no filler, no repetition of the annotation title.

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 no-parameter, read-only status query with a full annotation set, the description tells the agent what it reports and when to reach for it. A brief hint at the response form (per-provider connected/not-connected list) would make it fully self-contained, but no output schema exists and the omission 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 by the baseline rule this is a 4. There is no argument surface for the description to clarify or omit.

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?

Specific verb ("Show") plus resource (which accounts are connected vs. not), and it enumerates the exact providers in scope (email, Meta Ads, Telegram, Typefully, Instagram Insights, Google Analytics, chat apps). An agent can distinguish it at a glance from connect_integration, disconnect_integration, and integration_guide.

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?

"Call this first when the user wants to connect something, or when a tool says an account is not connected" gives an explicit trigger condition and a second fallback trigger, effectively routing the agent between this and the sibling connect/disconnect tools. Nothing is left to inference.

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