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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying conditional outputs: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides conditional details. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or fluff. This is an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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 has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior. It covers the all-connected and credentials-missing cases well, but it does not clarify partial connection states, the meaning of pending[], or what 'per-install URLs' represent. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent interpreting the response.

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 fully covers the input side. The description correctly focuses on output behavior rather than parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It identifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with authenticate or other siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 the tool by describing two conditions: all providers connected versus credentials missing. This gives context for interpreting results but does not explicitly state when to use connect versus authenticate or other alternatives. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions.

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