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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description explains exactly what the response will contain under different circumstances (e.g., empty pending[] when connected, connect_url when credentials are missing). It adds valuable context about the tool's behavior without contradicting any 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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, opens with the primary action, and front-loads the resource. Every phrase adds information, with zero fluff or repetition.

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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key scenarios (all connected, missing credentials) and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning error or partial connection states, but for the tool's simplicity it is quite complete.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Since there are no params to describe, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs') and provides conditional behavior (all providers connected vs missing credentials), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `authenticate` or `marketplace`. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool: to check connection status, with conditions on what responses to expect (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks that extra guidance.

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