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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so safety traits are covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the conditional response logic (when all providers connected vs. when credentials are missing), including the meaning of fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's behavior in different states.

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 concise sentences. It front-loads the core function ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then provides conditional details. No fluff, no repetition, and every clause adds meaning. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the return values and conditions. It explains both success and failure scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the fields returned. This is complete for a read-only status check, especially with annotations covering the safety profile.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't. The 4 reflects that no further parameter guidance is required.

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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It identifies the specific resource (connection status) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which would perform authentication) and 'show_version' (which shows version info). The description also provides concrete output examples (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) making the purpose highly unambiguous.

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 the tool: to check connection status, especially when you need to know if authentication is complete or if credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., 'use this instead of authenticate when you only need status'), but the context is clear enough. It lacks explicit exclusion guidance, which prevents a 5.

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