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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing state-dependent behavior (authenticated vs missing credentials) and the presence of 'pending[]', which hints at partial states. No contradiction found.

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, zero fluff, front-loaded with the action and result. Each clause adds meaningful information about conditions and outcomes.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return values and conditions. It could detail what the URLs are for, but the core functionality is sufficiently explained for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 4. The description enriches understanding by explaining what the returned fields mean (authenticated, pending, connect_url), compensating for the lack of schema detail on outputs.

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 verb 'Returns' clearly indicates a read operation for connection status and URLs. It specifies the resource (connection status) and provides conditions for different outputs (authenticated:true vs connect_url), distinguishing itself from siblings like 'authenticate' which perform actions.

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 explains when different outputs occur ('When all providers are connected', 'When credentials are missing') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. It implies this is for checking status, but lacks explicit conditions or exclusions.

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