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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful conditional output behavior beyond those annotations: authenticated:true with empty pending[] versus connect_url and per-install URLs for missing credentials. No contradiction exists.

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 followed by concise conditional details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description adequately explains the primary return variants. It could go slightly further by describing the exact structure of connect_url or suggesting next steps, but it is sufficient for a simple status tool.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description appropriately focuses on return states instead.

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 says the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs,' and it distinguishes this status-check tool from siblings like authenticate by describing conditional success/failure return states. The verb 'Returns' with a specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to check whether providers are connected or to obtain connect_url when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like authenticate, so it misses the explicit exclusion that would earn a 5.

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