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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the exact return values in different states (authenticated: true and empty pending[] when all connected; connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials missing). This enriches what annotations alone provide.

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 long and front-loads the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'). Every sentence adds value: the second sentence details the two possible outcomes. No fluff or repetition.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, what it returns in each scenario, and the meaning of the key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). Complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it explains the response structure and states, which is the relevant semantics for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description delivers context about what to expect.

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 function: returns connection status and URLs. It goes beyond a simple 'connect' verb to explain what it reports (authenticated status, pending providers, connection URLs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status inspection rather than performing authentication.

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: when checking connection status or retrieving connection URLs. It explicitly describes the two states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what the response contains in each case, providing clear guidance for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling 'authenticate' is clearly different.

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