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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by detailing the return values for different states (authenticated:true when all providers connected, connect_url when credentials missing). This goes beyond default annotations and provides clear behavioral context.

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 main purpose, and each sentence provides essential information. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately explains the expected return values for different states. It covers the main scenarios (all providers connected vs missing credentials). Could be slightly more explicit about what constitutes 'all providers', but overall complete enough.

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 baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it adds value by explaining the output, which indirectly helps understand the tool's functionality.

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 the behavior for different states (authenticated vs missing credentials). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which likely performs authentication actions.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to check connection status and obtain URLs when credentials are missing. While it does not explicitly say when not to use it, the existence of sibling tools like 'authenticate' provides implicit guidance, and the description is adequate for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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