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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context about what the response contains (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url) and how behavior changes based on provider connectivity. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, and each sentence adds distinct value—one describes the overall result and the other clarifies conditional output. No unnecessary 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 comprehensive annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior in both possible states (all providers connected vs missing credentials). No output schema is needed given the simple JSON structure implied by the description. It is complete for its complexity.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, but it does explain the output behavior in relation to different states, which is useful context for interpreting the response.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific detail about the authenticated flag and pending array. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than initiating authentication.

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 happens under different conditions (all providers connected vs missing credentials), which implies when to use it (to check connection state). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools like 'authenticate', so 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.