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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and idempotent=true, and the description doesn't contradict them. It adds valuable context by describing the state-dependent response (e.g., authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url), which goes beyond the annotations' boolean flags.

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 to three tight sentences with a front-loaded main verb and purposeful conditional logic. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose with 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 simple read-only status tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the description covers the key states effectively. Additional details like error handling would be nice but aren't critical for a tool of this 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description isn't expected to explain parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameter-less tool.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs' and details conditional outputs. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by framing itself as a status retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered. While the conditional output behavior is described, there's no direction on when to call this tool instead of authenticating or other siblings.

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