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 is safe and non-mutating. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the response structure (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) and the conditions under which each is returned. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral detail.

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-loaded with the primary purpose and then adding conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language. It is optimal in length for the tool's simplicity.

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, no output schema, and the annotations provide safety guarantees, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns and how the returned values vary based on connection state. Siblings are not referenced, but the tool is self-contained and complete for its intended use.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. The schema coverage is effectively complete (empty properties), and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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: returning connection status and URLs. It specifies the behavior under different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. The verb 'returns' and resource 'connection status and URLs' are specific and unambiguous.

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: whenever connection status is needed. It provides clear context by describing the two possible response scenarios, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the purpose is obvious and siblings are clearly different (e.g., authenticate for login), the implicit guidance is sufficient.

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