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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by explaining conditional return shapes (authenticated:true vs. connect_url). It provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the safety hints without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct and necessary information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details conditional behavior with 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) but the description adequately covers its primary return values and key conditional states. It does not detail the exact structure of 'pending[]' or 'connect_url', but this is sufficient for a status check tool.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool with full schema coverage receives a baseline of 4 since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 identifies the tool as returning connection status and URLs, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status reporting rather than performing authentication.

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 use cases by describing conditional outcomes (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The usage context is implied, not explicit.

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