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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds specific behavioral outcomes: authenticated true with empty pending, or connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs when credentials missing. This adds context beyond annotations, though not exhaustive (e.g., partial connectivity not covered), but sufficient.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then specific scenarios. No wasted words.

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 status/check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two main cases clearly. It doesn't explicitly mention the exact structure of the response, but it's a simple check. Completeness is adequate given simplicity.

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)Skip 0 params baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). No additional value needed.

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, with specific detail on the two outcome states (all connected vs missing credentials). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, which actually performs authentication, and show_version, which reports 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 it's for checking connection status and getting URLs when needed. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the action is clear. Sibling tools like authenticate indicate a different purpose, so usage context is reasonably clear, though no exclusions are given.

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