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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds behavioral details: what is returned when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing, and includes URLs. It does not explain formatting or pagination (though output schema absent), but given the annotations, the description provides enough additional context to warrant a 3.

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 purpose, and every sentence earns its place. No wasted words.

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 read-only status tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what is returned. It could mention that it may return partial connectivity when some providers are connected, but the description already says 'per-install URLs' which suggests that. Given that there is no output schema, it covers the essential return cases. A 4 is justified.

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 parameter semantics dimension is less demanding. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to describe parameter details, and it provides context about the kind of data returned. No parameter information is needed because there are none.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, and provides details on what it returns in different states. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate (which likely initiates auth) and show_version (which shows version info). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 usage: call this to check connection status before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It does note that when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url for the toolkit, which hints at a next step, but it lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' or 'do not use when Y'.

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