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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds useful behavioral context: explains the state-dependent response (when credentials are missing vs when all providers are connected). This adds value 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'). Every sentence adds value: the second clarifies conditional behavior. No wasted words.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and supporting annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is sufficient. It explains the return behavior in both states (authenticated vs missing credentials), which is the key contextual information an agent needs. Could mention how the connect_url is used, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% (none exist). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not discuss parameters, but since there are none, it doesn't need to. It fully compensates by explaining the response scenarios.

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?

Description clearly states what it does: 'Returns connection status and URLs'. It provides specific details about the return values for different states (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). Distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool that reports connection 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?

Implies when to use: when checking connection status or obtaining URLs for authentication. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools like 'authenticate' suggest it's complementary rather than a replacement. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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