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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main job is to add state-dependent details. It does so by describing what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, including specific fields like authenticated and pending[]. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the core function immediately, and the second provides the most useful conditional distinctions. 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it covers the two most important scenarios well. It does not fully specify behavior for partially connected states or what pending[] contains when non-empty, but for a simple status tool with no parameters this is a minor gap.

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 semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return values instead of inventing irrelevant parameter details. With no input schema burden to carry, this is an appropriate baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also adds conditional behavior around authentication states, which makes the purpose easy to identify. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, but the contrast with authenticate is reasonably clear from the status-focused wording.

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 usage: call this tool to check connection status and obtain URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over authenticate or when not to use it. The conditional language provides some context but stops short of direct guidance or named alternatives.

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