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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds important behavioral details about the response structure. It explains the two possible outcomes and the meaning of the returned fields, which goes beyond what the annotations convey. It doesn't mention side effects (none expected) but provides a good picture of what the tool does.

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 and highly concise. It packs the core behavior and conditional outcomes without any padding or redundancy. The structure is clean: first a general statement, then two specific conditional scenarios.

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 lack of an output schema, the description provides enough context by outlining the two key states and their associated fields. It mentions 'per-install URLs' but doesn't elaborate, though it's sufficient for understanding the tool. It could be more complete by describing the 'pending' array, but the main functionality is well covered.

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 no parameters in the schema, so the description has nothing to add. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), placing the baseline at 3. The description doesn't elaborate on parameters because 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 purpose: it returns connection status and URLs. It provides concrete examples of the two possible states, which makes the function unambiguous. The phrase 'Returns connection status and URLs' is a specific verb+resource combination.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining what happens when credentials are missing (returns connect_url) versus when all providers are connected (authenticated:true). It doesn't explicitly say 'use this to check connection status', but the behavior is clear enough to infer appropriate use cases. It differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication.

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