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 established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the response shape ('authenticated:true and empty pending[]', 'connect_url' for the toolkit, per-install URLs). This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool tells them, which is credit-worthy.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides the key conditional outcomes. Every word earns its place; this is a model of concision for a status tool.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the tool's contract. The only slight gap is that the description doesn't explain the full set of fields (like 'connect_url' vs per-install URLs) but that's minor for a read-only status check. It is complete enough for any agent to invoke confidently.

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 requires nothing of the agent. With no parameters to document, the description has no obligation to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no gap for the description to fill.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs') and provides useful detail about the authenticated and unauthenticated states. It is clear what the tool does, and the fact that it's a status/health check distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace', though sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 this is a status-check tool that should be used to inspect connection state, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. It is not misleading, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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