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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by detailing conditional output structures (authenticated:true vs connect_url), going beyond annotation scope. No contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and detail conditional outcomes without redundancy. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the response format in different states. It might benefit from specifying what pending[] contains or the nature of URLs, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand expected responses.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter ambiguity. The description focuses on output rather than inputs, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters, meeting the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 outputs based on provider connectivity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication.

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 explains behavior in different credential states but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for checking connectivity but does not mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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