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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail beyond these annotations by explaining the conditional return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url with per-install URLs when credentials are missing). This provides useful context without contradicting annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and each clause adds essential detail about the two states. There is no waste 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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains the return values for both scenarios, covering the main behavior. The annotations handle safety properties, and the simple tool with no parameters requires no further explanation. It is complete and self-contained.

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 schema is trivial. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding parameter semantics that don't exist.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs' and elaborates on two specific states, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 (when you need connection status) and provides clear context about the two return states, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned, so guidance is 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.