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 agent knows it's safe and non-mutating. The description adds context about the two possible response states: authenticated:true when all providers are connected and connect_url when credentials are missing. However, it doesn't explain what happens if only some providers are connected, or if there are other states. The description provides some additional behavioral detail but could be richer.

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, both informative and without fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then gives specific details about return states. Every word earns its place. It's a model of concise, structured description.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete in explaining what the tool returns and under what conditions. It could be slightly more comprehensive by mentioning partial connection states, but since the description says 'When all providers are connected' and 'When credentials are missing', it covers the main cases. The tool's complexity is low, so the description suffices.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value and conditions, so a 4 is warranted.

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 purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns). It also provides details about the two possible outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url for missing credentials). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace', the description makes the tool's role clear enough.

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 context by describing what the tool returns under different conditions (all providers connected vs credentials missing). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or reference to sibling tools. The information gives some guidance but could be more explicit.

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