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

The description explains exactly what happens in two key scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials), including the shape of the return data ('authenticated:true and empty pending[]' vs 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs'). This aligns with annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and adds valuable behavior detail beyond 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, direct, and free of redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and behavior without unnecessary filler.

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 tool is a simple status check with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains the two possible outcomes and what is returned in each case, making it complete for an agent to decide and use.

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 schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter info since there are none, which is appropriate.

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 distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' (which likely initiates auth) and 'show_version' (which shows version info) by focusing on connection status and provider 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 implies when to use: whenever you need to check whether providers are connected or need connection URLs. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the scenarios described ('When all providers are connected' vs 'When credentials are missing') give clear usage context.

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