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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining the two distinct return states (authenticated true vs. needing connection URLs), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and it clarifies the output structure without requiring an output schema.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by the two conditional outcomes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description covers all crucial aspects: what it returns and the two main scenarios. It could elaborate slightly on the structure of connect_url or pending[], but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. The description is complete enough for a read-only status check.

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 description coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, which is appropriate. No need to compensate for missing schema 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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection info) and the verb (returns), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' (which performs authentication rather than checking status). The two concrete return scenarios make the purpose 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 provides situational context (e.g., when credentials are missing, when all providers are connected) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'show_version', so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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