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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds behavioral context about the shape of the response (authenticated flag, pending[], connect_url) that goes beyond the annotations. This is a getter that says what it returns. A 3 is appropriate because the description is helpful for a read operation but doesn't go into edge behaviors (e.g., partial connection states, what providers means specifically), though the conditional logic with missing credentials is a plus. It's not 4-level rich but it's adequate and additive.

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 focused sentences. The first defines the tool's purpose, the second explains the branching behavior based on connection state. Every word earns its place. It's front-loaded with the most critical info (what it returns) and exactly as long as needed.

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, read-only tool with rich annotations (safe, idempotent, read-only), the description is largely complete. It covers the main response fields and conditional logic. It would benefit from mentioning which providers are checked or an example output, but this description provides enough clarity without over-explaining. The annotations already encode the safety profile, so nothing more is needed there.

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 takes 0 parameters, so there's no parameter schema to clarify. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description adds value by detailing what the response conveys (authenticated, pending[], connect_url), compensating for a lack of structured field documentation.

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 a specific verb (returns) and resource (connection status). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the exact scenarios: when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (returns connect_url). This is not a tautology and provides concrete detail beyond the name.

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 in connection-status checking scenarios, and explicitly differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' (which presumably handles the actual auth) by mentioning 'when credentials are missing, returns connect_url.' However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of authenticate when checking connection state' or provide exclusion criteria. Clear context, but no formal when/when-not structure.

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