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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe, so the description adds value by explaining the two output conditions: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, versus connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and every clause adds meaningful detail about expected states and return values. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main output scenarios well. It could be slightly more complete by defining the middle/partial state or explicitly contrasting with authenticate, but it is adequate for invocation.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inventing 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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also distinguishes behavioral outcomes by provider connectivity state, making the tool's scope specific and useful relative to siblings like authenticate.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant—checking connection status and obtaining URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional states imply its role as a status/readiness check.

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