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

While annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds concrete conditional output details such as returning authenticated:true with empty pending[] or connect_url and per-install URLs. This provides agent-useful behavioral context beyond the flat annotation fields.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences with a clear purpose first, then condition-specific details. No wasted words, ideal for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the key return states and their meanings. It lacks a detailed specification for partial-connection scenarios, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward status-checking utility.

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, and the schema is effectively fully covered (100% schema coverage, only an empty object). The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is 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's function: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status inspection rather than authentication initiation.

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 usage context by describing what happens in two key scenarios: when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the behavior is specific enough to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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