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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds conditional return behavior: when all providers connected returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], when credentials missing returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond annotations by describing response conditionsais. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded, no fluff. Describes purpose and conditional behavior efficiently.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two main cases (all connected vs credentials missing) and provides enough context. Could be slightly clearer about the exact meaning of pending[] or URLs, but it's adequate.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description doesn't need to explain parameters; it's about the return behavior.

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 purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the exact resource (connection status) and the output (URLs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication, making it a distinct read-only check.

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 when to use this tool: to check connection status and determine if credentials are missing. It gives conditional behavior (when all providers connected vs when credentials missing) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use when...'. The mention of 'connect_url' for missing credentials implies it might be a precursor to authentication, but it doesn't explicitly say 'use to check if you need to authenticate' or name an alternative tool. So it's clear context but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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