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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about return states (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) but does not mention lacks of behavior like rate limits or auth requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value but is not rich.

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 purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is succinct yet informative, covering both successful and failure states without extraneous detail.

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 the tool is simple (no params, no output schema), the description is complete enough for understanding what it returns. It could maybe mention the return format (e.g., JSON structure) but the context signals indicate that's covered elsewhere. For a status-check tool, this is adequate.

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 description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It actually provides semantic meaning about the return content, which is helpful.

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, specifying what happens in different states (all providers connected vs credentials missing). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status/URLs rather than performing authentication or showing 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 (checking connection status) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like authenticate or toolkit_info. It provides no exclusions or alternative guidance, but since it's a status-check tool, the usage context is fairly clear.

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