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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it specifies two distinct output states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what fields appear (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declared, offering concrete insight into runtime behavior.

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 with front-loaded purpose, immediately followed by actionable conditional logic. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

The description covers the main output states and required fields without an output schema. It lacks details on partial-connection scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of the pending[] array hint, this is adequate. Slightly incomplete for edge-case behavior, but overall sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema trivially covers everything. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies to 0-parameter tools, and the description does not need to compensate since there is nothing to document.

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 and explains conditional behavior (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing). This unambiguous verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and toolkit_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?

While not explicitly naming alternatives or saying 'use this when', the description clearly implies it is for checking connection status and provides conditional outputs that guide appropriate use. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is strong.

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