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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing exact behaviors: it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This conditional behavior is valuable and not conveyed by annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence provides meaningful detail about output states. 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?

The description covers the two main states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and implies the intermediate state through pending[]. It lacks an explicit description of partial connection states or output format, but for a simple read-only status tool, it is adequately complete.

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 no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. Per rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 it 'Returns connection status and URLs', specifying a concrete resource and output. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than initiating authentication.

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 implies when to use the tool (to check connection status) and provides context through conditional outcomes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool list makes the context clear.

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