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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return values under different conditions (authenticated vs missing credentials), and that it returns both toolkit and per-install URLs. This is a meaningful addition.

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 that immediately state the purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then detail behavior in two key states. No fluff, front-loaded.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (status, authenticated flag, pending[] array, and URLs). It covers both primary states but could be more explicit about the exact response structure (e.g., field names like 'authenticated' and 'pending'). Still, for a simple status tool, it's reasonably 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)Skip the description needs to explain. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description doesn't need to add anything about parameters, and it doesn't.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional behavior for connected vs missing credentials. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which initiates connections) and 'show_version' (which reports version info).

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 does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that 'authenticate' should be used to initiate connections when credentials are missing, leaving the agent to infer the workflow. Could benefit from explicit 'use this to check if all providers are connected' and 'use authenticate to initiate connections'.

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