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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, which the description doesn't contradict. It adds context about response variations (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials missing), which is valuable beyond the annotations. No annotation contradiction.

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 brief, two sentences, and directly front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value (returns status, conditional behavior). 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the two possible return states but doesn't detail the structure of connect_url or per-install URLs; however, that might be unnecessary. For a zero-param tool, this is adequate.

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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously high). So the baseline is 4. The description explains what the response contains, but since there are no params, the description's job is not about params. The high coverage means full marks baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the status output, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like the TDQS high example.

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 when to use it—when checking connection status—but doesn't state when not to use it or explicitly mention alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. Context is clear but exclusion isn't stated.

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