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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context: it explains the conditional behavior based on connection state and what fields are returned (pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a mental model of the response shape.

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 that clearly state the tool's output and the two possible conditions. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then elaborates on the conditional behavior.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the primary return states and the fields involved. However, it could briefly mention the exact structure of the response (though not required) or clarify what 'per-install URLs' are, but given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotations, this is adequate.

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 the schema provides no parameter information. The description doesn't need to describe parameters, but it adds semantic value by explaining the output structure and conditional fields, which helps the agent interpret the result. Since there are no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for adding meaningful behavioral semantics.

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, distinguishing it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which presumably initiates authentication) and 'marketplace' (which likely lists available tools). It explicitly mentions key outputs like authenticated:true and connect_url, giving a specific purpose with resource and behavior.

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 provides context on when to use it: to check if all providers are connected. It explains the two possible outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or missing credentials with connect_url). However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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