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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it specifies exactly what returns in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This goes beyond annotations and helps predict output.

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, fully front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides necessary detail without fluff. Efficient and clear.

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 is complete for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. It explains the two possible return scenarios, including the authenticated state and the missing-credentials state, which covers the main use cases. No further details seem necessary.

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 there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific output variations based on provider connection state. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (which presumably initiates auth) and show_version (which shows version info), as it is focused on connectivity.

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 clear context: use this to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the purpose is obvious enough that an agent would know when to call it.

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