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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the two possible outcomes: authenticated:true with empty pending[], and missing credentials producing connect_url and per-install URLs.

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, no filler, with the most important behavioral distinctions front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple, parameterless status tool, the description covers the key inputs and expected outputs: authenticated state, pending array, and URL fields under both connected and missing-credential scenarios. No output schema exists, so these behavioral details carry the necessary completeness.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no semantic explanation. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here; the description cannot meaningfully add parameter information.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly differentiates this from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by framing it as a state-check/status report rather than an action.

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 contextual guidance by describing what the user gets when providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'authenticate', but the state-based behavior makes the intended use case clear.

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