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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds significant value by detailing exactly when authenticated:true appears, what pending[] contains, and what happens when credentials are missing, including the connect_url fields. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main verb 'Returns,' and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. The structure is clear and directly addresses the tool's purpose and output conditions.

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 zero-parameter status endpoint with no output schema, the description fully covers the conditional responses and URL details. There are no gaps in what an agent would need to know to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

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 behaviors, making it immediately obvious what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by focusing on status/URL retrieval.

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 when needing connection status or URLs but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools. The conditional behaviors give context but no direct 'use this when' or exclusions.

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