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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying return values (authenticated:true, empty pending[], and connect_url variants). This gives agents insight into what to expect without side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what is returned, the second details conditional outputs. 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the two primary states (connected and missing credentials) adequately. It explains the key response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url, per-install URLs) and is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's outcome rather than any inputs.

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. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status reporting rather than performing authentication. The verb 'Returns' with a specific resource scope is 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?

Provides clear context on when results differ (all connected vs credentials missing) and what the response includes in each scenario. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the read-only nature and return details imply it should be used for status checking. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficient for typical agents.

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