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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the exact response conditions (e.g., when 'authenticated:true' and empty 'pending[]') and the inclusion of 'connect_url' and per-install URLs. It does not over-explain, and no contradictions exist.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose and then provide clarifying conditions. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundant explanation.

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 endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and edge cases (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It does not cover potential error handling or rate limits, but these are less critical for this simple 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools. The description could not add parameter details, but the baseline is justified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs') and clearly outlines expected output fields ('authenticated:true', 'pending[]'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' by implying it's the status-check endpoint without explicitly naming alternatives.

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 it (checking connection status, when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or direct references to sibling tools, resulting in implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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