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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the exact output structure in two scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials), including the presence of 'authenticated' and 'pending' fields and the connect_url. This adds meaningful behavioral detail with no contradiction.

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 core purpose, then adds conditional detail. Every sentence is informative; there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, benign annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by detailing the response in both success and failure scenarios. It fully covers what an agent needs to know to use the tool effectively.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds value by explaining the tool's behavior without needing to describe parameters.

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 output variations based on connection state, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' that likely perform authentication rather than check status.

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 provides clear context on when the tool is useful—checking connection status—and explains the conditional behavior when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'authenticate' or state when one should be preferred, so it misses a direct usage guideline.

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