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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-mutating operation. The description goes beyond these by specifying the exact response variants: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This enriches the agent's understanding of edge-case outputs without contradicting 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?

The description is just two sentences, with the primary action stated first and conditional details following. There is no redundancy or filler; every word adds value by clarifying output scenarios. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 parameterless status checker, the description succinctly covers all normal and edge-case behavior: connected state, missing credentials, and the URLs returned. The rich annotations and straightforward schema mean no additional context is required. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 no parameter-specific documentation is needed. Schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description correctly focuses on output behavior rather than inventing parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs,' which precisely states the tool's function. It further elaborates on conditional behaviors (authenticated:true vs. missing credentials) that make it distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'show_version'. This fully differentiates the tool from its peers.

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 by detailing what the tool does and when different outputs occur, giving clear context for an agent to decide when to call it. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, the purpose is unambiguous and the conditional explanations provide sufficient guidance for typical use cases. It falls short of a 5 because there's no direct mention of when not to use it.

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