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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds clarity about the response structure (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the behavior when credentials are missing. This adds value beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail error cases or side effects (which are likely none given read-only).

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 concise, two sentences, and directly relevant. It front-loads the primary purpose and then gives conditional details. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. It explains the state-based output and what URLs are returned. Could be slightly more explicit about error conditions, but overall complete for practical 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The description fully explains the output and the conditions under which different output appears, which is more relevant than parameter semantics.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific details about the response when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely initiates the connection) by focusing on status retrieval.

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 does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, the context of returning status and URLs is clear, and given the sibling tools, it is evident that this is for checking rather than initiating authentication.

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