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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by describing exactly what is returned under connected vs missing-credential conditions, which is valuable for a status-checking 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 compact and efficient. Two sentences communicate the core purpose and both relevant output states without redundancy or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the important return conditions and provides enough detail about authenticated, pending, and connect_url. It lacks only a small amount of extra nuance about what 'per-install URLs' specifically contain, and it does not explicitly connect to the authenticate flow.

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 input schema carries no burden. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed; the description correctly focuses on 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 clearly specifies the tool's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also defines key output states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials are missing), which distinguishes this read-only status/connection tool from sibling tools like authenticate.

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 gives clear context about the two output states, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus authenticate or other siblings. Usage is implied rather than directly stated, and no alternative tool is named.

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