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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotency, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by specifying conditional outputs ('When all providers are connected...' vs. 'When credentials are missing...'), which is useful for callers to handle responses.

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 minimally sized, only two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') before providing conditional details. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, the two main scenarios (authenticated vs. missing creds), and the meaning of fields like 'connect_url'. There is no output schema to compensate for, but the description fully specifies expected behavior.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the description fully explains the input side. There is no missing parameter information, and the description successfully communicates what would otherwise be unclear. A 4 is warranted because no additional parameter context is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a concrete resource ('connection status and URLs'), and explains behavior in both connected and missing-credential states. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by indicating its purpose as a status check rather than an action.

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?

Even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the description inherently clarifies when to call this tool (to inspect connection status/URLs) and implies when not to (when attempting to authenticate). The context around 'pending[]' and 'connect_url' gives enough usage clarity, though it could be more explicit about not being for authentication.

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