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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the response structure (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url presence) and conditional behavior based on credential state, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the conditional behavior is explained efficiently. Zero 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with robust annotations, the description covers the essential states and returned values. It doesn't detail the format of URLs, but that's a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool and no output schema.

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 cannot document them. The description adds no param info (which is fine), but the baseline for 0 params is 4 because there's nothing to add. The description focuses on output semantics instead, which 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 uses specific verbs ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on connection status rather than authentication or other operations. It also provides specific behavioral details (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) that differentiate it from alternatives.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to check whether connections are set up and to get URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when', but the context about authenticated and pending states provides clear usage context. No exclusions needed since it's a status check.

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