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 behavioral context about the two possible return states (authenticated:true vs. connect_urls), which is useful. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the response beyond the mentioned fields, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the main behavior and the edge case of missing credentials without any 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, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two main states and what the user can expect. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the exact fields returned (e.g., authenticated, pending, connect_url) but the description already names them. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's clarity.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output behavior instead. No additional parameter information is needed.

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, and distinguishes between two states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It is specific about the resource (connection status) and the output (authenticated flag, pending array, connect URLs). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is clear.

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 when to use this tool (to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info, some guidance on when to use connect vs. those would improve the score.

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