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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive action, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds behavioral info about output states (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and what happens with missing credentials. However, it doesn't clarify if there are network calls or side effects beyond reading status. Since annotations cover safety, it adds some value.

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 sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the main purpose and then details the behavioral outcomes. 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with good annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the state of connections and the URLs returned. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's detail on what is returned. Could add what happens if some but not all providers are connected, but the description already covers missing credentials.

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 zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It does explain the return values in terms of connection status and URLs, which is useful. Since there are no params, baseline is 4; the description fully explains what the tool returns without needing param documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It adds detail about the states (authenticated:true, empty pending[], missing credentials, connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). However, it could better distinguish from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, but it does mention credentials and connection context.

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 usage: use it to check connection status and obtain URLs for connecting missing providers. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or alternative tools, but it gives clear context on what it returns. Sibling tools like authenticate seem related, but the description provides enough context to infer when to call connect.

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