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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. Description adds valuable conditional response semantics: `authenticated:true` with empty `pending[]` when all connected, and connect_url/per-install URLs when credentials missing, which isn't derivable from annotations.

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. First states purpose, second elaborates conditional behavior. Every clause adds value, no fluff.

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 zero-parameter read-only status endpoint, the description covers the two main response scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). It lacks explicit error/partial states, but given no output schema and simple nature, it's sufficient. The `connect_url` and per-install URLs are mentioned, which is enough for an agent to use.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per rubric, baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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?

Clear verb 'Returns' with specific resource 'connection status and URLs.' Distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status, not the auth flow.

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?

Description gives behavioral context for when providers are connected vs missing credentials, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling 'authenticate' tool. Context implies it's for checking status rather than initiating auth, but no explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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