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 useful conditional behavior: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated true and empty pending[], while missing credentials cause it to return a connect_url and per-install URLs. This is meaningful beyond the annotation fields.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then provides necessary conditional detail. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the main expected behaviors: connected state, missing-credential state, and the useful URLs returned in each case. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool will do and what it will receive.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output and conditions instead.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from connection-establishing siblings like authenticate by indicating this is an inspection/read-only tool rather than a credential setup tool.

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 explains how the output changes depending on connection state, which implies the right time to call it (when checking current connection status or when credentials may be missing). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use connect versus authenticate or toolkit_info, so usage direction remains inferred rather than explicit.

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