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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds conditional behavior (authenticated:true when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing), which provides useful context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, with a purpose statement followed by two conditional behavior clauses. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal, effective language.

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?

For a simple, parameterless status-check tool with no output schema, the description explains the two primary states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what URLs are returned. It's complete enough for an agent to understand when to call it, though it could mention partial connection states more explicitly.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description rightly doesn't discuss parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 the exact response structure for both connected and missing-credential cases. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, which handles the authentication flow.

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, while sibling 'authenticate' is for performing authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need to verify connectivity' or name the alternative tool, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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