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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the 'authenticated' boolean, the empty 'pending[]' array, and the conditional 'connect_url'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them in any way.

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 tightly written sentences deliver the core purpose and key conditional behavior. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the main action.

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-checking tool, the description covers all essential behaviors: what it returns and how it differs under different states. No output schema means no missing return specifications; the description is complete for this context.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per rubric, this is a baseline 4, and there's no missing information to penalize.

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 a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by describing specific behavioral states, though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly. The purpose is unmistakable and not a tautology.

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 gives clear context for use, explaining when the tool returns different results (all connected vs. missing credentials). It doesn't explicitly exclude any scenarios or name alternatives, but the intent is obvious. 'Clear context, no exclusions' fits perfectly.

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