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 description's emphasis on status checking adds little beyond the annotations. However, it does provide some context by describing the two return scenarios (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), which is helpful but not extensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information about behavior and output. No waste.

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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema) and the annotations that cover safety, the description is quite complete. It covers the main use case and specifies what to expect in both success and missing-credential scenarios. A small gap: it doesn't mention whether there are any side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only status check with annotations, this is sufficient.

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, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description adds value by explaining the output conditions, which is the main semantic content. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it returns connection status and URLs. It also explains the two possible output scenarios (all connected vs. credentials missing), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'authenticate'.

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 usage for checking connection status, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. It could benefit from a note like 'use this to verify connectivity before other operations'.

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