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

Beyond the annotations indicating read-only and idempotent, the description explains the output scenarios: it returns authenticated true with empty pending when all connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. This provides additional behavioral insight.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main outcomes of the tool, including the happy path and the missing credentials case. While it doesn't enumerate all possible edge cases, it provides sufficient context for a connection status tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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', which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'show_version' by focusing on connection status.

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 conditional usage by describing what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, which guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools, so it's not fully explicit.

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