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 safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by describing the output in different scenarios (authenticated:true when connected, connect_url when credentials missing), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., partial connections) but is sufficient for a read-only status tool.

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, with the primary purpose stated upfront: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' The second sentence adds conditional behavior without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly efficient.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and behavior. It covers the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions both return fields (authenticated and pending). It does not describe partial connection states, but for a simple status tool with no schema, this is reasonably 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 zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameter semantics. The input schema is empty, and the description adds no parameter info because none exists. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and the verb (returns), and distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than authentication execution. The conditional behavior further clarifies what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it explains what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. This implicitly guides the agent to use this tool for checking connection state before attempting authentication. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling 'authenticate', the distinction is clear enough.

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