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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining conditional response behavior: authenticated:true when connected and connect_url/per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded and the conditionals placed naturally. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff.

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 sufficiently explains the meaningful cases: fully connected state and missing-credentials state. The annotations additionally clarify safety, making the tool fully interpretable.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers invocation needs. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no ambiguity exists.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and explicitly names the resource: connection status and URLs. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, which presumably establishes the connection rather than reporting on it.

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 conditionals ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') imply the tool is for checking connection state and retrieving relevant URLs, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this over 'authenticate' or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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