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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral details by describing conditional outcomes: returns authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and returns connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful state-dependent behavior, though it does not cover all possible intermediate states.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then expanding into key conditional behaviors. Every sentence contributes value, no irrelevant details or repetitions.

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, annotations cover safety), the description does a solid job explaining the two main return scenarios. It lacks a comprehensive schema of return fields, but for a status-checking tool, the provided details about authenticated, pending, and URLs are adequate. It could be more complete by describing partial connectivity, but the essentials are covered.

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 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters; it instead focuses on the return values, which is appropriate. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 as 'Returns connection status and URLs', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' that perform actions. It also elaborates on two distinct return states, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 tool is used to check connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or other siblings. The conditions (all providers connected vs. credentials missing) give some usage context, but no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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