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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint): it explains the return structure in two distinct states, including specific fields like 'authenticated:true', 'pending[]', and 'connect_url'. This goes beyond the basic safety hints, though it does not cover all potential states (e.g., partial connectivity), leaving some gaps.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: the core function, the full-connected state, and the missing-credentials state. There is no verbosity or 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return values for two key scenarios but omits possible partial-connection states. Given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description is adequate, though slightly more detail on edge cases would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is fully covered with no properties. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than action. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool by describing scenarios ('When all providers are connected', 'When credentials are missing'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as 'authenticate'. There is no direct guidance on exclusions or alternative selection, making the usage context 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.