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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, the description reveals conditional behavior: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url. This explains the state-dependent nature of the output, which is not captured in the annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'). Every sentence provides necessary detail (the conditional outputs) with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description is complete. It explains the two possible outcomes (authenticated with empty pending[], or connect_url when credentials are missing) and mentions per-install URLs. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency. This is sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool's 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 provides no parameter documentation. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none exists, 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 states a clear purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb (returns) with a defined resource (connection status and URLs), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate (which likely performs authentication) and show_version (which shows version info). The description is not a tautology and clearly indicates what the tool does.

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: to check connection status. It explains two scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what the output will be in each case. However, it does not explicitly instruct when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like authenticate. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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