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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. The description adds useful behavioral detail about output conditions (when authenticated:true vs. when connect_url is provided), which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent set expectations. There is no contradiction.

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 function ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and provides conditional detail efficiently. Every word adds value—no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is complete for its purpose. It explains the primary return conditions, but could be slightly richer (e.g., mentioning that it also returns pending[] details or what 'per-install URLs' are for). Still, it's adequate for a low-complexity 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 schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add redundant parameter information. It focuses on output semantics, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace. It specifies the output behavior ('authenticated:true' and empty pending[] when all providers are connected) and mentions per-install URLs, making the purpose unambiguous and specific.

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 on when to use this tool: to check connection status, particularly when credentials are missing. It implies this is a diagnostic tool rather than an action tool, but it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings like 'authenticate' or mention when not to use it. The context is clear but excludes explicit alternatives.

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