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 description doesn't need to repeat these. However, the description adds value by explaining the return behavior: when all providers are connected, it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This gives the agent insight into the response structure beyond what annotations provide.

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, each earned: the first states the core purpose (returns connection status and URLs), and the second details the two possible outcomes. It is front-loaded with the primary action and follows up with specifics. No extraneous words.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters/idempotent and read-only, so the description is sufficient. It explains when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing, covering key scenarios. It doesn't mention error cases or what happens when some providers are connected and others are not, but that's a minor gap for a simple status tool. The annotations and simplicity support a 4.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty (0 properties). With no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4, but the description does not add any parameter-related information because there are none. The description's focus on return values does not compensate for missing parameter semantics, but that's a non-issue. Given no parameters, a score of 3 is reasonable, though arguably could be 4; but since there's no explicit mention of 'no parameters' or similar, I'll stick with 3.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, and specifies the behavior when providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than establishing a connection. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a status check, which could be inferred, but it's quite clear.

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) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' exist, but the description doesn't mention them or explain when to prefer 'authenticate' over 'connect' for initiating authentication. It's contextual but lacking explicit exclusions.

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