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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about conditional responses (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url), which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent predict tool behavior.

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 ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by concise conditional details. No redundant or filler language; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behaviors (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url). It could clarify what 'per-install URLs' means, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, and it adds no misleading parameter information.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than initiating authentication, and provides specific outcomes (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url).

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 this tool is for checking connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. The conditional behavior (when providers connected vs. missing credentials) gives context, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use authenticate instead' guidance.

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