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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the two states (connected vs. missing credentials) and the corresponding return fields. This includes what happens when credentials are missing, which is useful. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety. No contradictions.

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, with three sentences each providing value: the main purpose and two conditional outcomes. No redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and both possible outcomes. It explains the authenticated flag and the URLs returned. Some details like the structure of pending[] are not explained, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 the description cannot add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description is not penalized for omitting parameter details.

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, using the specific verb 'returns' and resource 'connection status'. The mention of 'authenticated:true' and 'connect_url' clarifies the output states. It distinguishes from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing authentication, though not explicitly.

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 the tool is for checking connection status, particularly when credentials are missing or after setup. It describes conditional behavior but does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like 'authenticate'. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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