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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint:true and idempotentHint:true, and the description adds significant context beyond that: the exact fields returned (authenticated, pending[], connect_url), and the conditional behavior when credentials are missing. This gives the agent a precise model of what the tool does and returns, going well beyond the structured data.

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: a clear lead statement followed by two conditional branches. Every sentence adds behavioral information without unnecessary verbosity. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then details specific states, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is quite complete, covering the primary success case and the missing-credentials case. However, it doesn't address other potential states (e.g., partial connectivity or network errors), and with no output schema, a bit more exhaustiveness could help, though complexity is low.

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?

With 0 parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly doesn't dwell on parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4 per the rubric. No additional parameter info is needed, though a note about the absence of parameters isn't necessary.

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 output behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (the action of connecting) and 'toolkit_info' (general information) by scoping it to connectivity 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?

Usage is implied through the described behavior: to check connection status. However, there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives like 'authenticate', leaving the agent to infer when this is the right tool. A clear usage context but no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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