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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds valuable context about conditional outputs based on connection state (all connected vs credentials missing), which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and each sentence adds meaningful detail. No waste, concise and structured clearly.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains return values for the two main scenarios. However, it does not address the case where some but not all providers are connected, which is an edge case. For a simple tool with no params, this is fairly complete but leaves a minor gap.

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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. According to instructions, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It still provides context about the tool's function, so a 4 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status and URLs) and provides concrete details about return values (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on connection status, which is distinct from authenticate (action), marketplace, show_version, etc.

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 by describing two scenarios: when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. This tells the agent when to expect certain outputs but does not explicitly state 'use this to check connection status' or mention alternatives. It provides context without exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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