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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the exact return values in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs), which is meaningful behavioral detail beyond 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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provide concrete examples. No redundant wording, every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the two main output scenarios and what to expect, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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 has full coverage (100%) and there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning since none 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, with specific details about two scenarios (all providers connected vs credentials missing). It specifies the resource (connection status) and the verb (returns), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate which likely initiates authentication rather than checking status.

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 this tool – to check connection status and retrieve connection URLs – and provides context about different outcomes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives like authenticate, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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