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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds conditional behavioral detail: what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing, explaining the response content (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond annotations but does not mention rate limits or authentication prerequisites, which are not critical for this simple read-only tool.

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 long, tightly written, and front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns connection status and URLs'). It then explains the conditional outcomes without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple status check, the description is complete. It explains the two expected response scenarios, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. There are no hidden edge cases or complex behavior to disclose, and the description covers the core use case thoroughly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100% coverage). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 even without parameter info. The description does not mention parameters, but that is irrelevant; the tool takes no input. It correctly focuses on the output behavior instead.

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 uses a specific verb 'returns' with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checks rather than establishing connections. It also explains the two possible outcomes (all connected vs missing credentials), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this is for checking connection status, and the sibling 'authenticate' suggests the alternative for establishing connections. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others, such as 'use this to check status before authenticating' or contrast with alternatives. It provides context (two states) but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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