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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the output states (authenticated: true with empty pending[] when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing) and mentions per-install URLs. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences, tightly written with no fluff. Every sentence provides necessary information about the tool's behavior and output conditions, earning 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and simple output, the description covers the essential behavior. It mentions output conditions and key fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. The lack of an output schema means the description does the work of explaining return values, and it does so adequately.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not waste space on parameters.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace'. It specifies output conditions (authenticated: true when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing), making the purpose concrete 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 explains what the tool returns in different states, which implies it should be used to check connection status before performing other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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