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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it explains what happens in different states (returns connect_url when credentials missing) and mentions the return structure (authenticated and pending fields). This goes beyond the annotations, which is good since the annotations are minimal. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it adds value by describing response conditions.

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, both front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome. It uses efficient phrasing (e.g., 'When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') to describe conditional behavior without bloat. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose, scoring high on efficiency.

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 simple read-only behavior, the description covers the key aspects: the response's structure and the two possible states. It doesn't describe the format of URLs or the exact structure of pending, but for a simple status tool, this is adequate. The presence of sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info suggests this is part of a larger connection flow, and the description gives enough context for an agent to understand when to call it.

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 provides no parameter information, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, zero params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the return values that depend on internal state, which is sufficient for a parameterless read-only status check.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info. It explains behavior in different states (all connected vs missing credentials), which is more specific than a generic status check. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for connection-related actions, so it's a clear purpose but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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: it tells you what to expect when all providers are connected vs when credentials are missing, which helps an agent decide if further action (like using authenticate) is needed. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. It's adequate but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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