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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context by specifying return values under two scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not disclose any additional implications (e.g., what 'pending' signifies or if partial connectivity exists).

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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured with no filler.

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 and the tool is simple, the description adequately covers the main return values and conditional cases. It lacks exhaustive detail (e.g., what happens if some but not all providers are connected), but it provides enough for an agent to understand the basic outcomes.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is empty, and the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids redundant info.

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 the tool's function with specific verbs ('returns connection status and URLs') and provides concrete behavioral detail (e.g., returns authenticated:true when all providers are connected). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'.

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 for checking connection status by describing its behavior under different credential conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate', lacking explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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