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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context about the response format, such as the connect_url and per-install URLs, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 then clarifying conditions. Every sentence adds value with 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 simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient to convey behavior. However, it could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the response format includes authenticated boolean and pending array, which it does, but it might also state that no input is required.

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 no parameters, so the schema covers all parameter semantics (100%). The description does not need to add parameter details and adds value by explaining the output conditions, making it a baseline-plus for a parameterless tool.

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, specifying outcomes for different states (authenticated vs. missing credentials). It differentiates from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status rather than the act of authenticating or version info.

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 the tool is used to check connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus authenticate or other tools. It provides context about what responses mean but lacks direct guidance on when or when not to use it.

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