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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, idempotentHint:true, and destructiveHint:false, establishing a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the exact return behavior under two different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), including the presence of 'pending[]' and 'connect_url'. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting any annotation.

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 ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and provides additional details in a compact, efficient manner. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations covering safety), the description adequately covers the return values and their conditional behavior. It explains 'authenticated:true', 'pending[]', 'connect_url', and per-install URLs. While it could elaborate further on the exact structure of 'pending[]', the brevity is acceptable for the tool's low complexity.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe, but the baseline applies.

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 purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by specifying it's a status check rather than an action. The description also clarifies the output under different conditions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 it: to check connection status and retrieve URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or state 'use this when...', but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, especially given the sibling tool 'authenticate' exists for actual authentication.

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